Citation: R v Matthew James Harris [2000] NSWSC 285
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 7 April 2000
Judge(s): Bell J
Background
The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and one count of armed robbery in company. The murders were committed in Wagga Wagga over approximately six weeks from around 1 October 1998. All three victims were killed by strangulation in separate incidents.
The first victim was a 62-year-old man with residual stroke-related difficulties whom the offender knew through family connections. The second victim was a 33-year-old woman with a mild intellectual disability who the offender had driven as a community transport volunteer. The third victim's circumstances were addressed in the course of the sentencing hearing. The armed robbery, committed ten days before the offender's 30th birthday, involved the offender and an associate forcing their way into a unit at knifepoint, terrorising a woman and her three children, and stealing $58.
The central sentencing question was whether the offending was so extreme as to warrant a life sentence, or whether a finite term with a specified non-parole period was the appropriate response.
Legal Issues
- Whether the offender's conduct warranted the imposition of a life sentence under the applicable legislation, on the basis that the nature of the offences and the offender meant he could never be released without unacceptable risk to the community
- What weight to give mitigating factors, including the guilty pleas, the offender's mental health history, and any signs of rehabilitation potential
- How to structure concurrent sentences across three murder counts and one armed robbery count, having regard to totality
- How to approach parity with the co-offender in the armed robbery, who had already been sentenced following a trial
Decision
Bell J considered in detail whether the offender's crimes met the threshold for a life sentence. The applicable legislation at the time required the court to be satisfied that the nature of the offences and the offender were such that the community interest in protection could never be adequately served by release. Her Honour concluded that this threshold was not met, accepting that there remained some prospect of rehabilitation and that a finite sentence with a lengthy non-parole period was appropriate.
The murders were described as deeply serious. Two were characterised as wholly opportunistic killings driven by anger, while the first killing involved a vulnerable, elderly man who was known to the offender and who had offered no resistance. Bell J had regard to the offender's background, including periodic depression observed by those who knew him, as well as the significant weight afforded to guilty pleas and cooperation with police through electronically recorded interviews.
On the question of totality, Bell J imposed concurrent sentences across all three murder counts, declining to distinguish between them for the purpose of fixing the head sentence. Each count attracted a 40-year term with a 25-year non-parole period, commencing from the date of custody.
Regarding the armed robbery, Bell J noted that the co-offender had been sentenced to a minimum term of 39 months following a trial. Applying parity principles and acknowledging that the co-offender was not entitled to a guilty plea discount, her Honour imposed a 3-year term for the robbery. Given the lengthy non-parole periods attached to the murder sentences, no separate non-parole period was set for the robbery offence.
Orders Made
- Three concurrent sentences of 40 years imprisonment for each count of murder, commencing 1 December 1998, with a non-parole period of 25 years in each case; earliest parole eligibility date: 30 November 2023
- One sentence of 3 years imprisonment for armed robbery in company, commencing 1 December 1998, expiring 30 November 2001; no non-parole period set for this offence
Key Takeaways
- A life sentence under the applicable NSW legislation required the sentencing court to be satisfied that the nature of the offences and the offender were such that community protection could never be adequately served by release; Bell J found that threshold was not reached on these facts despite the gravity of the three murders.
- Guilty pleas to multiple serious charges, including three counts of murder, carried meaningful weight in mitigation even where the offending was of an extreme character.
- Where concurrent sentences were imposed across multiple murder counts, the principle of totality required the court to consider the overall sentence as a whole rather than treating each count in isolation.
- Parity principles applied to the armed robbery sentence, with Bell J aligning the outcome with the sentence received by the co-offender while accounting for the absence of a guilty plea discount in the co-offender's case.
- Where a lengthy non-parole period on a more serious concurrent offence already governed the earliest release date, the sentencing court declined to set a separate non-parole period for the lesser concurrent offence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW), ss 5, 13A
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 19, 19A, 431B
- Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999, Sch 1
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21, 44, 61, Sch 2, cl 37
- Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Act 1996 (NSW)
- Crimes (Homicide) Amendment Act 1982 (NSW)
- Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 135
Cases:
- R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
- R v Kalajzich (1997) 94 A Crim R 41
- R v Petrinovic [1999] NSWSC 1131
- R v Garforth (CCA, unreported, 31 March 1994)
- R v Street (CCA, unreported, 17 December 1996)
- R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466
- R v Burke [1983] 2 NSWLR 93
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465
- R v Petroff (Hunt CJ at CL, unreported, 12 November 1991)
- R v McCafferty (Wood J, unreported, 15 October 1991)
- Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
- R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
- R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245