Citation: Regina v Matthews [2004] NSWCCA 112
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 23 April 2004
Judge(s): Wood CJ at CL; Sperling J; Hislop J
Background
The applicant pleaded guilty in the Newcastle District Court to one count of break, enter and steal in circumstances of special aggravation (wounding), contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The charge arose from a midnight home invasion during which the victim, a man in his mid-fifties, was struck with an iron bar by the applicant's co-offender and stabbed seven times by the applicant. The victim's injuries were life-threatening and required extensive surgery; he also developed post-traumatic stress disorder.
The sentencing judge at first instance imposed a term of 11 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years, after applying a 20 per cent discount for the utilitarian value of the early guilty plea and finding special circumstances based on the applicant's vulnerability.
The applicant sought leave to appeal on two grounds: that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that insufficient weight was given to her subjective circumstances, including her borderline intellectual functioning.
Legal Issues
- Whether the 11-year head sentence with a 7-year non-parole period was manifestly excessive for this offence, having regard to comparable sentences and the applicant's subjective circumstances.
- Whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to the applicant's borderline intellectual functioning and associated psychological disabilities when assessing moral culpability.
- Whether those disabilities also moderated the weight to be given to general deterrence as a sentencing purpose.
- Whether disparity with the co-offender's sentence was a relevant consideration.
Decision
The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, holding that the original sentence was excessive. The majority (Wood CJ at CL and Hislop J) substituted a sentence of 9 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months, both dating from 27 June 2002.
The majority accepted that the offence fell at a very high level of objective criminality, given the violence involved and the life-threatening injuries inflicted on the victim. However, the sentencing judge had not given adequate weight to the applicant's intellectual disability, her psychological profile, her limited criminal history, her genuine remorse, the impulsive rather than premeditated nature of the stabbing, and the fact that this would be her first period of custody.
Sperling J agreed that the original sentence was excessive but would have substituted a shorter sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years. His Honour placed greater weight on the nexus between the applicant's intellectual and psychological disabilities and her conduct during the offence. He reasoned that her pathological dependence, poor impulse control, limited reasoning capacity, and susceptibility to persecutory ideation each contributed materially to the commission of the offence, thereby reducing her moral culpability. His Honour also noted that her profile made her a less suitable vehicle for general deterrence, moderating that sentencing consideration.
The majority and Sperling J agreed on the legal framework: that impaired intellectual functioning and psychological disability can reduce the moral culpability to be attributed to an offender, and can also reduce the weight given to general deterrence.
Orders Made
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Appeal against sentence allowed.
- Original sentence quashed.
- Applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years, dating from 27 June 2002.
- Non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months set, dating from 27 June 2002 and expiring on 26 December 2007.
- 26 December 2007 specified as the earliest date on which the applicant is entitled to be released on parole.
Key Takeaways
- Intellectual disability and associated psychological deficits can reduce an offender's moral culpability where a nexus exists between those disabilities and the conduct constituting the offence, consistent with the authorities in Henry, Jiminez, Tsiaras, and Lauritsen.
- An offender's intellectual and psychological profile may also moderate the weight given to general deterrence as a sentencing purpose, since such an offender is a less effective vehicle for that purpose.
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a 20 per cent discount for the utilitarian value of an early guilty plea was appropriate, particularly where the applicant did not seek to minimise her own role despite available evidence that could have shifted responsibility to the co-offender.
- Special circumstances justifying a longer parole period than the statutory proportion can be found where an offender's vulnerability, first time in custody, and psychological state indicate that an extended period of supervised reintegration is warranted.
- A disagreement among the judges on the substituted sentence illustrated that reasonable minds can differ considerably on the weight to be given to subjective factors in serious violent offences, even once the primary sentence is accepted as excessive.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 110, 112(3)
Cases:
- Regina v Bus NSWCCA 3 November 1995
- Regina v Champion (1992) 64 A Crim R 244
- Regina v Elchami NSWCCA 15 December 1995
- R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
- Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- Regina v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
- R v Jiminez [1999] NSWCCA 7
- Regina v Kilmartin (1989) 41 A Crim R 22
- Lauritsen v R (2000) 114 A Crim R 333
- R v Letteri NSWCCA 18 March 1993
- Regina v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
- R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398
- Regina v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48