R v Rees - [2011] VSC 523

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0181 of 2010

THE QUEEN

MATTHEW REES

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 October 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 November 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Matthew Rees (sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 523

---

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – intentionally causing serious injury – sustained, violent attack involving use of a meat cleaver – serious injuries to victim – drug-induced psychosis – no previous experience of such a psychotic state – no prior convictions – youthful offender – genuine remorse – genuine attempts to address substance abuse issues while on bail – good prospects of rehabilitation – Crown concession that shorter than usual non-parole period warranted – total sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment – non-parole period of 2 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms C Quin	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Kowolski	Tony Hannebery Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Matthew Rees, you have pleaded guilty to intentionally causing serious injury to John Wauchope on 3 January 2010.

At the time of the offence, you and Mr Wauchope were friends. You had known each other for 2 or 3 years, through your mutual love of music. You often met at his home for band practice and to smoke cannabis together. At the time of the offence, Mr Wauchope was 39 years old and living in his own home, sharing custody of his children. You were 23 and still living at home with your parents.

Over the 2009/2010 New Year period, you and some friends attended the Falls Music Festival at Lorne, where you drank alcohol and consumed large quantities of several illegal drugs. You slept very little during the festival.

On 2 January, after you returned to Melbourne, you attended a party at Mr Wauchope’s home. At the party, you, Mr Wauchope and your girlfriend, Aimee Osborn, all used a small quantity of LSD. You started “tripping out” – suffering hallucinations in which you believed you were on fire, and making rambling and incoherent remarks. Mr Wauchope and others at the party thought you were in your own world and not hurting anybody, so were not particularly concerned about your strange behaviour.

On the morning of the 3^rd, you and Ms Osborn packed up your tent and left Mr Wauchope’s place. That afternoon, you smoked cannabis and drank alcohol with friends.

Around 8 pm that evening, you returned to Mr Wauchope’s home, where the two of you smoked 2 or 3 cones of cannabis in the laundry. You started behaving strangely after you went into the lounge room. You telephoned Ms Osborn and your mother, telling them that you were scared, were losing it mentally and “tripping out”. When you spoke to your mother, you told her your father had been killed; she tried to reassure you that your father was still alive and in hospital. You sounded fearful, and were…

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 Rees

Details

AGLC: R v Rees [2011] VSC 523
Case: [2011] VSC 523
Decision Date: 4 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Rees, was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to a victim in a violent attack involving a meat cleaver. Rees appealed against the sentence imposed, arguing that the severity of the sentence was disproportionate to the circumstances. The appeal was heard by the court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence in light of the mitigating factors presented.

The court had to consider the nature and severity of the crime, the circumstances of the attack, and the mitigating factors presented on behalf of the appellant. These factors included Rees's drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offence, his lack of previous convictions, his status as a youthful offender, his genuine remorse, his attempts to address his substance abuse issues while on bail, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The Crown conceded that a shorter than usual non-parole period was warranted.

The court carefully weighed all the factors and ultimately determined that a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years was appropriate. The court found that the mitigating factors presented a strong case for leniency, and the Crown’s concession further supported a reduced non-parole period. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and took into account the appellant’s personal circumstances and prospects for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years was upheld.

Orders