R v Matthews - [2014] NSWSC 608

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Matthews [2014] NSWSC 608
Hearing dates: 3 February 2014; 4 April 2014; 16 May 2014
Decision date: 22 May 2014
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(i)For the offence of the murder of Pia Navida, the offender is convicted.
(ii)The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 16 years and 3 months imprisonment, commencing on 2 August 2011 and expiring on 1 November 2027, with an additional term of 5 years and 3 months imprisonment, commencing on 2 November 2027 and expiring on 1 February 2033.
(iii)The total sentence is one of 21 years and 6 months imprisonment.
(iv)The offender will be eligible for parole on 2 November 2027 and his sentence will expire on 1 February 2033.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - late plea of guilty - where offending occurred in 1992 - necessity to sentence offender according to sentencing practice which applied at that time
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 NSW
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Hungerford (NSWCCA unreported 15 December 1993)
R v MJR [2002] NSWCCA 129; (2002) 54 NSWLR 368; (2002) 130 A Crim R 481
R v McDonald (NSW CCA unreported 18 August 1994)
R v Paterson (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 162
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Todoroski [2010] NSWCCA 75
R v Webster (NSWCCA unreported 15 July 1991)
RLS v R [2012] NSWCCA 236
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Crown
Steve Isac Matthews - Offender
Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Crown
Legal Aid Commission New South Wales - Offender

File Number(s): 2011/ 243687
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

On 3 February 2014 Steve Isac Matthews ("the offender") pleaded guilty to the murder of Pia Navida ("the deceased") on or about 1 February 1992.

The offender's joint trial with Rodney Paterson ("Paterson") was due to commence on the day on which the plea was entered. Paterson subsequently went to trial but was acquitted by direction (see R v Paterson (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 162).

Tendered on sentence was a Form 1 containing particulars of an offence of having sexual intercourse with the deceased without her consent, contrary to s. 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW. I have been asked to take that offence into account when sentencing the offender.

The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment (see Crimes Act 1900 NSW s. 19A). Although a standard non-parole period of 20 years is now prescribed, that non-parole period has no application to the present case, the offence having been committed in 1992.

THE FACTS

A statement of agreed facts tendered by the Crown states the following:

"1. At about midday on Saturday 1 February 1992 two bushwalkers, on a track in the Royal National Park near Bundeena, found some personal effects (deodorant, underwear and other items) and then the naked body of a woman.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Matthews

Details

AGLC: R v Matthews [2014] NSWSC 608
Case: [2014] NSWSC 608
Decision Date: 22 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Matthews involved a defendant who had committed a murder in 1992 but only entered a late guilty plea in 2019. The sentencing court was required to determine the appropriate punishment in accordance with the sentencing principles and practices that were applicable at the time of the offence, rather than those in force at the time of sentencing. This issue arose due to the late plea of guilty, which resulted in the court needing to apply the correct legal framework for sentencing.

The central legal issue was whether the court should impose a sentence based on the principles and practices in effect at the time of the offence or at the time of the late plea. The court had to consider whether the late plea of guilty warranted a departure from the sentencing practices of the time of the offence and whether the principles of fairness and justice dictated a different approach. The court also needed to balance the need for consistency in sentencing with the potential impact of a significant delay between the offence and the plea.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the sentence should be determined according to the sentencing practices applicable at the time of the offence. The court reasoned that the principles of fairness and justice required the sentence to reflect the legal framework in place when the offence was committed. The court emphasised that sentencing is not only about punishing the offender but also about ensuring that sentences are proportionate and consistent with the law at the relevant time. The court concluded that applying the sentencing practices of the time of the offence was necessary to uphold the rule of law and to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime in the context of the legal standards of that period.

The court ordered that the sentence be imposed according to the sentencing practices applicable in 1992, the year in which the offence was committed. The specific details of the sentence were not provided in the text, but the court's decision ensured that the sentencing process adhered to the legal standards of the time of the offence.

Orders