R v Matue - [2009] QCA 216

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Matue [2009] QCA 216

PARTIES:

R
v
MATUE, Faasala Samu
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 87 of 2009
DC No 827 of 2009
DC No 482 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 July 2009

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Muir and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant was sentenced, after a plea of guilty, to 18 months imprisonment for an offence of serious assault – where sentence was made cumulative on a sentence of four years and six months for an offence of robbery with actual violence and assault occasioning bodily harm – where parole eligibility was fixed on a date four months after the full time release date of the former four and a half year sentence – where parole eligibility date effectively delayed the applicant’s parole eligibility beyond the halfway mark of the combined sentences – whether parole eligibility date amounted to additional punishment

Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 205(2)(c), s 209(1)
Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184(3)(a)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160B

R v Griinke [1992] 1 Qd R 196; [1990] CCA 294, cited
R v Hundric[2005] QCA 324, cited
R v Kitson [2008] QCA 86, cited
R v Russell[2005] QCA 392, cited

COUNSEL:

C Heaton for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Muir JA. I agree that the application should be refused, for those reasons.

MUIR JA: The applicant was sentenced on 2 April 2009 after a plea of guilty to 18 months imprisonment for an offence of serious assault committed on 20 July 2008. The sentence was made cumulative on a sentence of four years and six months imposed on 18 December 2006 for an offence of robbery with actual violence and assault occasioning bodily harm. A parole eligibility date of 16 November 2011 was fixed. That was the date four months after the former full time release date for the four years and six months sentence.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that the sentencing judge erred in fixing a parole eligibility date beyond 12 July 2009,[1] the date at which the applicant would have served three years imprisonment, i.e. one-half of the total of the four and a half and one and a half year terms, after taking into account 157 days of pre-sentence custody.
[1]Conceded in oral submissions to be 29 December 2009.

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 Matue

Details

AGLC: R v Matue [2009] QCA 216
Case: [2009] QCA 216
Decision Date: 31 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Matue involved the appellant, Matue, who had pleaded guilty to an offence of serious assault. He was subsequently sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, which was made cumulative with a prior sentence of four years and six months for robbery with actual violence and assault occasioning bodily harm. The crux of the appeal was the manner in which parole eligibility was set. The parole eligibility for the assault sentence was scheduled to begin four months after the full time release date of the earlier sentence. This effectively extended the appellant's parole eligibility beyond the midpoint of the combined sentences. Matue contended that this arrangement constituted additional punishment, thereby making the overall sentence manifestly excessive.

The legal issues central to the appeal revolved around the interpretation and application of sentencing principles, particularly whether the setting of the parole eligibility date constituted an additional punitive measure that warranted judicial intervention. The court had to determine if the parole eligibility date, by delaying the appellant's potential release, amounted to an excessive or inadequate sentence under the relevant sentencing legislation. The appellant argued that this timing effectively increased his period of incarceration beyond what would have been the natural midpoint of the combined sentences.

The court meticulously examined the principles governing parole eligibility and its impact on the overall sentence. It concluded that the setting of the parole eligibility date did not constitute an additional punitive measure but was a legitimate aspect of the sentencing process. The court found that the parole eligibility date was not arbitrary or punitive but was a calculated aspect of the sentence intended to ensure public safety and was not an imposition of additional punishment. The court held that the sentence, including the timing of parole eligibility, was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Matue [2009] QCA 216
PARTIES:	R v MATUE, Faasala Samu (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 87 of 2009 DC No 827 of 2009 DC No 482 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	31 July 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 July 2009
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Muir and Chesterman JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant was sentenced, after a plea of guilty, to 18 months imprisonment for an offence of serious assault – where sentence was made cumulative on a sentence of four years and six months for an offence of robbery with actual violence and assault occasioning bodily harm – where parole eligibility was fixed on a date four months after the full time release date of the former four and a half year sentence – where parole eligibility date effectively delayed the applicant’s parole eligibility beyond the halfway mark of the combined sentences – whether parole eligibility date amounted to additional punishment Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 205(2)(c), s 209(1) Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184(3)(a) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160B R v Griinke [1992] 1 Qd R 196; [1990] CCA 294, cited R v Hundric[2005] QCA 324, cited R v Kitson [2008] QCA 86, cited R v Russell[2005] QCA 392, cited
COUNSEL:	C Heaton for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent