escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Mathew Sterling

Mathew Sterling

Alias

.

Offences

Murdered a 70 year old Greymouth man and assaulted his daughter in January 1996

Victims

Karl Galbraith

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1965

Current Location

Unknown

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to a "life" sentence in November 1996
Eligible for release on parole January 2006

Background
Background from THE PRESS November 1996
Mathew Sterling was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Karl Marx Galbraith in the High Court at Greymouth yesterday. After a retirement of almost 90 minutes the jury returned a guilty verdict against Sterling, 31, a sickness beneficiary, for the murder of Mr Galbraith, 70, who died in Christchurch Hospital on February 7 after being severely assaulted on January 23.

Sterling was also found guilty of assaulting Ainsley Helen Galbraith, daughter of the deceased, and Justice Hansen sentenced him to a concurrent term of six months imprisonment for that offence. He was found not guilty of assaulting Eugene Galbraith, aged 15, who was said to have struck Sterling on the back of the neck with a cricket stump to stop him hitting Mr Galbraith. Philip Shamy and Philippa Currie prosecuted for the Crown, and Sterling was represented by Mohammed Shahadat and Dean van Mierlo.

One of the last Crown witnesses, Sergeant Linn Gerard Koevoet told the court that he and Constable Wayne Patrick Dwyer had gone to the Cook Terrace house in response to an assault complaint, and found Mr Galbraith lying in a pool of blood. Constable Dwyer had gone to the rear of the property and called out to Sterling to come out of hiding as a tracker dog was being brought to the scene.

Sterling had appeared, and been taken into the house, where there was an angry confrontation with members of the Galbraith family. Sterling refused to leave and became aggressive and abusive. He was arrested and removed from the scene, after saying that he had not assaulted anyone, that he had not caused any injuries, and that ''the old man must have fallen''. Later, at the Greymouth police station. Sterling was unco- operative and aggressive.

He had threatened Sergeant Koevoet, saying that he would find out where he lived and visit him one night. ''I said I was not an old man aged 70,'' said the witness. ''He (Sterling) replied that I wouldn't reach that far.''He told the accused that the injuries Mr Galbraith had received were life threatening, and Sterling had replied ''I hope so''. Opening the defence case, Mr van Mierlo asked the jury not to be swayed unfairly by any feelings of sympathy, arising from the ''horrific'' nature of the forensic evidence or the photographs of the deceased.

The essential defence was that Mr Galbraith had died from pneumonia. The medical evidence, notably that of Dr Macfarlane, was that he was recovering from his injuries when pneumonia developed and brought on his death. Mr van Mierlo said the assault on Eugene Galbraith had been self- defence after Eugene hit Sterling with a cricket stump on the back of the neck. The Crown had failed to establish the facts about the alleged assault on Ainsley Galbraith, he said.

---

Corrections and Additional Information
We endeavour to make this database as accurate as possible, but we are at the mercy of whatever information we can find in various online and offline archives. We rely on the public - that is, people like you - to fill in the gaps that we cannot. If you wish to submit additional information or a correction to this file CLICK HERE . Privacy: Trust policy is that all sources are treated as strictly confidential unless we are explicitly told otherwise. If you wish to see a file removed from this database certain conditions must be met by the offender set out HERE Note that this does NOT apply for those that are the primary offender in a murder, rape, or any sexual offending involving minors. We do not enter into correspondence regarding the guilt/innocence of offenders. Such correspondence is not responded to, especially if the offender concerned has a number of prior convictions

Back to Top