Matara v The the Queen - [2022] NZSC 68

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 27/2022
[2022] NZSC 68

BETWEEN	BILLY MARK MATARA Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	A J Ellis for Applicant J E Mildenhall for Respondent
Judgment:	27 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

In 2016, Mr Matara was living in a boarding house. In the early hours of 7 May 2016, he invited the victim, a fellow resident, onto the deck for a cigarette. There was some conversation but they did not argue. The victim went into the kitchen to make a cup of tea. Mr Matara followed him and shot him twice with a pump-action shotgun. The victim was seriously injured and lucky to survive. He has serious ongoing health issues.
Mr Matara was convicted at trial of attempted murder and was sentenced to 10 years and two months’ imprisonment without the possibility of parole in terms of s 86C of the Sentencing Act 2002, one of the “three strikes” provisions.[1]
[1]R v Matara [2017] NZHC 2198 (Courtney J) [HC judgment].
In 2021, Mr Matara successfully appealed against the High Court’s application of s 86C before the Court of Appeal in light of this Court’s decision in R v Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald).[2] The Court substituted a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 40 per cent.[3]
[2]Fitzgerald v R [2021] NZSC 131, [2021] 1 NZLR 551 [Fitzgerald].
[3]Matara v R [2021] NZCA 692 (Miller, Goddard and Katz JJ) [CA judgment] at [78].
Mr Matara now seeks leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the grounds that Court erred in not also reducing his sentence.

Out of time

Mr Matara’s application is several weeks out of time, but an extension of time is not opposed given there is no prejudice to the Crown.

High Court sentencing

The sentencing Judge set a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment.[4] In setting that starting point, she took into account that Mr Matara was likely psychotic at the time of the offending “at least as a result of methamphetamine use, but possibly as a result of some other underlying disorder as well or instead of”.[5] The Judge said that, to the extent the psychosis was a result of methamphetamine use, she could not treat it as a mitigating factor.[6] She was prepared to treat the offence as not being pre-meditated in the sense of that being an aggravating factor.[7] She did not, however, see the psychosis as a factor justifying a discount.
[4]HC judgment, above n 1, at [18]. This was the starting point put forward on behalf of Mr Matara. The Crown had submitted a starting point of 11 years was appropriate: at [6].
[5]At [15]. Mr Matara’s sentencing had been adjourned earlier for psychiatric assessment but…

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 Matara v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Matara v The the Queen [2022] NZSC 68
Case: [2022] NZSC 68
Decision Date: 27 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matara v The Queen was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant, Billy Mark Matara, sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which had substituted a minimum period of imprisonment of 40 per cent for his attempted murder conviction, rather than reducing his sentence further. Mr Matara argued that the Court of Appeal had erred by not reducing his sentence, and that this was discriminatory in light of his mental health issues and his status as Māori. The respondent, the Crown, opposed the granting of leave, arguing that the 10 year and two months sentence was not challenged in the Court of Appeal, and that Mr Matara was already eligible for parole. The Court granted the application for an extension of time but dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether Mr Matara's application for leave to appeal was out of time, and if the Court of Appeal had erred in not reducing his sentence further, in light of his mental health issues and status as Māori. The Court considered that Mr Matara's application was several weeks out of time, but that an extension of time was not opposed given there was no prejudice to the Crown. The Court also considered that the Court of Appeal had already taken into account Mr Matara's mental health issues in reducing the minimum period of imprisonment, and that there was no challenge in the Court of Appeal to the sentence of 10 years and two months. The Court further considered that Mr Matara was already eligible for parole, and that there would be little practical effect arising out of any sentence reduction. The Court also noted that the three strikes legislation was in the process of being repealed, which reduced the general and public importance of the proposed appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The Court held that the Court of Appeal had already taken into account Mr Matara's mental health issues in reducing the minimum period of imprisonment, and that there was no challenge in the Court of Appeal to the sentence of 10 years and two months. The Court further held that Mr Matara was already eligible for parole, and that there would be little practical effect arising out of any sentence reduction. The Court also noted that the three strikes legislation was in the process of being repealed, which reduced the general and public importance of the proposed appeal. The Court held that it was not necessary in the interests of justice to hear the appeal.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders