R v Matthewson - [2001] QCA 4

[2001] QCA 4

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA

MACKENZIE J

CA No 226 of 2000

THE QUEEN

ALLAN TREVOR MATTHEWSON	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 30/01/2001
JUDGMENT
30012001 T3/TW12 M/T COA4/2001

MACKENZIE J: The applicant was sentenced on an ex officio indictment to concurrent terms of imprisonment for a variety of offences of dishonesty.

There were eight offences of armed robbery, two of which were further aggravated because they were committed in company. There was one offence of attempted armed robbery in company. For each of these offences he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. That level of sentence had the consequence that a declaration that he was a serious violent offender applied.

There were nine offences of burglary and cognate offences committed on homes and business premises. For these he was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

There was one offence of stealing from the person in which he was the driver of a getaway vehicle used after an accomplice snatched a handbag from an elderly pensioner as she left a shopping centre. For this he received two years imprisonment.

There were also two offences of stealing property, a wooden trunk and a lawn mower on display outside shops. For these he received 12 months imprisonment. The burglary, breaking, entering and stealing and attempted breaking and entering offences were committed between 13 August 1997 and 29 December 1999.

At first the method of operation was to steal furniture from antique shops by smashing display windows. Later it was to

2 JUDGMENT

30012001 T3/TW12 M/T COA4/2001

enter residences and commercial premises and steal electrical
goods and other easily saleable items. The value of the
property stolen, in these offences, was in excess of $30,000.

The cost of replacing broken glass was almost $4,000.

The robberies were committed between 8 January 2000 and attempted robbery, which was just before the last robbery, was unusual in that it was an aborted demand for money at the Greenslopes Fertility Clinic.

4 February 2000, with two exceptions on convenience stores.

In this case, as in the case of all the robberies, a knife was used for the purpose of enforcing the demand for money. The total amount of money stolen in these offences exceeded $2,800.

The applicant complains only about the sentences of 10 years. It was conceded that, in the event that the sentence was reduced, a declaration that he was a serious violent offender was still appropriate.

One of the principal arguments was that the sentencing discretion had miscarried because the learned sentencing Judge had failed to impose a sentence at the lower end of a range determined after making due allowance for factors in the applicant's favour or, alternatively, that he had failed to make due allowance for matters in the applicant's favour. This, it was submitted, was required under the principle developed in The Queen v. Bojovic, Court of Appeal 4 of 1997,

3 JUDGMENT

30012001 T3/TW12 M/T COA4/2001

The Queen v. McCartney, Court of Appeal 13 of 1999, and…

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 Matthewson

Details

AGLC: R v Matthewson [2001] QCA 4
Case: [2001] QCA 4
Decision Date: 30/01/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus Allan Trevor Matthewson, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment for various offences of dishonesty, including eight offences of armed robbery, nine offences of burglary, and other related offences. The applicant appealed against the severity of the 10-year sentences imposed for the armed robbery offences. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing discretion had miscarried and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the principles set out in relevant authorities and had imposed sentences at the lower end of the appropriate range. The judges noted that the applicant had a criminal history, had demonstrated recidivism by committing the robberies shortly after his release from prison, and had subjected nine victims to the threat of a knife during the robberies. The Court concluded that the sentences of 10 years imprisonment for the armed robbery offences were not manifestly excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offences and the applicant's criminal history.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the severity of the sentences. The order is as indicated by Justice Mackenzie.

Orders