Regina v Matthew Eric John EAGLETON - [2003] NSWCCA 40

CITATION: REGINA v Matthew Eric John EAGLETON [2003] NSWCCA 40

HEARING DATE(S): 26/2/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 February 2003

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J at 1; Bell J at 2

DECISION: Time extended in which to bring the application for leave to appeal; Leave to appeal granted; Appeal allowed ; Sentence imposed in the District Court varied by the specification of a non-parole to expire on 7 March 2003; Direct the applicant's release on parole on 7 March 2003

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: R v Beattie [2000] NSWCCA 201
Regina v Foster [2001] NSWCCA 215
R v Meyer [2002] NSWCCA 451
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296

PARTIES :
REGINA
Matthew Eric John EAGLETON (Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60002/03

COUNSEL: PJP Power SC (Crown)
TJ Golding (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor
DJ Humphreys (Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/31/0096

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Coolahan DCJ

60002/03

O’KEEFE J
BELL J
28 February 2003

REGINA v Matthew Eric John EAGLETON

Judgment

1 O’KEEFE J: I agree with Bell J.

2 BELL J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed upon the applicant by his Honour Judge Coolahan (“the Judge”) in the Newcastle District Court on 28 June 2001.

3 On 3 May 2001 the applicant pleaded guilty to an indictment containing a single count alleging the malicious wounding of Damien John Rawson at Mayfield on 12 November 2000. The applicant entered a plea of guilty to that count. The proceedings were stood over to 19 June 2001 for sentence hearing. As I have noted sentence was pronounced on 28 June 2001. The applicant had spent one day in custody in respect of the offence as at the date of sentence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The Judge sentenced the applicant to a term of eighteen months imprisonment to be served by way of periodic detention. No non-parole period was specified.

4 The applicant lodged a notice of intention to appeal on 3 October 2002. In an affidavit sworn on 14 February 2003 the applicant offered an explanation for part of the delay in bringing this application. He was taken into custody as the result of his failure to attend the periodic detention facility. He offers an explanation for that failure to which it is not necessary to refer for present purposes.

5 On 28 November 2001 the Parole Board revoked the applicant’s periodic detention order pursuant to the provisions of s 163 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. The effect of this order was that the applicant then stood to serve the unexpired balance of the sentence which amounted to 1 year 5 months and 7 days. The applicant surrendered to the police on 1 January 2002 and commenced to serve that sentence. It will expire on 7…

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 Regina v Matthew Eric John EAGLETON

Details

AGLC: Regina v Matthew Eric John EAGLETON [2003] NSWCCA 40
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 40
Decision Date: 28 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Matthew Eric John Eagleton, the applicant appealed against the severity of a sentence imposed by the Newcastle District Court. The applicant, Matthew Eric John Eagleton, pleaded guilty to malicious wounding of Damien John Rawson and was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment to be served by way of periodic detention. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence on the grounds that the sentencing judge had failed to properly apply the provisions of sections 6 and 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, failed to give any, or any adequate, reasons for not imposing a non-parole period, and the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court found that the sentencing judge erred by determining to impose a sentence to be served by way of periodic detention before fixing the term of the sentence, and by not giving reasons for not specifying a non-parole period. The Court held that the error was substantive and not merely a matter of form. However, the Court considered that the sentence of eighteen months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant intervention, except for the omission of a non-parole period.

The Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence imposed in the District Court by specifying a non-parole period to expire on 7 March 2003. The Court also directed the applicant's release on parole on 7 March 2003. The Court extended the time in which to bring the application for leave to appeal and granted leave to appeal.

Orders