Matthews v R [2014] NSWCCA 185

Matthews v R [2014] NSWCCA 185

The sentencing Judge erred in correcting the unlawful commencement date in a way that increased the applicant's total effective sentence and non-parole period beyond what had originally been considered appropriate. The original sentences were also manifestly excessive given the relatively small amounts involved, the unsophisticated nature of the offending, proportionality, and the need to avoid sentencing the applicant again for his criminal history. On re-sentence, special circumstances were found because of accumulation with the pre-existing sentence, so as to provide a period of parole for readjustment and supervision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentences quashed; applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'commencement Date of Sentence' 'correction of Sentence Contrary to Law' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (nsw) S 47' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (nsw) S 43' 'manifest Excess' 'fraud Offences' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'parole']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'commencement Date of Sentence' 'correction of Sentence Contrary to Law' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (nsw) S 47' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (nsw) S 43' 'manifest Excess' 'fraud Offences' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'parole']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court erred by adjusting the commencement date of the first sentence without adjusting the second sentence, thereby increasing the total effective sentence and non-parole period.' 'Whether the sentences for dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether special circumstances should be found because of accumulation between the current sentences and the pre-existing sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing Judge erred in correcting the unlawful commencement date in a way that increased the applicant's total effective sentence and non-parole period beyond what had originally been considered appropriate. The original sentences were also manifestly excessive given the relatively small amounts involved, the unsophisticated nature of the offending, proportionality, and the need to avoid sentencing the applicant again for his criminal history. On re-sentence, special circumstances were found because of accumulation with the pre-existing sentence, so as to provide a period of parole for readjustment and supervision.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentences quashed; applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'The sentences imposed in the District Court are quashed and in lieu thereof the offender is sentenced in respect of sequence 1 to a non-parole period of 12 months commencing on 29 May 2014 and expiring on 28 May 2015 with a balance of term of 12 months.'...