Meoli v R - [2021] NSWCCA 213

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Meoli v R [2021] NSWCCA 213
Hearing dates: 18 August 2021
Date of orders: 3 September 2021
Decision date: 03 September 2021
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]
Simpson AJA at [2]
Bellew J at [57]
Decision:
1. Leave granted to appeal.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Application for leave to appeal against sentence — whether sentencing judge erred by failing to assess whether the applicant was unlikely to reoffend under Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(3)(g) — where sentencing judge considered applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation but not unlikelihood of reoffending — where sentencing judge was not asked to make a finding about the likelihood or unlikelihood of the applicant’s re-offending — severity — whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Dicianni v R; Pintabona v R [2015] NSWCCA 201
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Kresovic v R [2018] NSWCCA 37
Phanekham v R [2015] NSWCCA 295
R v Pogson (2012) 82 NSWLR 60; [2012] NSWCCA 225
Taylor v R [2018] NSWCCA 255
TL v R [2020] NSWCCA 265
Vartzokas v Zanker (1989) 51 SASR 277
Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44
Zuffo v R [2017] NSWCCA 187

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ricky Meoli (Applicant)
The Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
J Conomos (Applicant)
C Dodds (Crown)
Solicitors:
Michael Vaughan & Co (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2019/278823
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Ricky Meoli, unreported, NSWDC

Date of Decision:

27 August 2020

Before:

Syme DCJ

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by Simpson AJA and with her Honour’s reasons.
SIMPSON AJA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against two separate sentences imposed on him in the District Court on 27 August 2020: R v Ricky Meoli, unreported, NSWDC, 27 August 2020.
The sentences were imposed following the applicant’s pleas of guilty to six charges. Three charges were of offences against s 307.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth), of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug (“the Commonwealth offences”). A maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years is provided for each offence.
One charge was of an offence against s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (“DMT Act”), of supplying a prohibited drug, for which a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years is provided; one charge was of an offence against s 25(2) of the DMT Act, of supply of not less than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, for which a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years is provided and, pursuant to Pt 4 Div 1A…

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 Meoli v R

Details

AGLC: Meoli v R [2021] NSWCCA 213
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 213
Decision Date: 03 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Meoli v R, the applicant, Meoli, sought leave to appeal against his sentence, contending that the sentencing judge erred by not assessing whether he was unlikely to reoffend under section 21A(3)(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The primary dispute centred around the sentencing judge’s consideration of Meoli’s prospects for rehabilitation but not explicitly on his unlikelihood of reoffending. The severity of the sentence and whether it was manifestly excessive were also central issues in the application.

The court had to determine if the sentencing judge’s failure to assess Meoli’s unlikelihood of reoffending constituted an error warranting leave to appeal. The court also considered whether the lack of a specific finding on the unlikelihood of reoffending affected the sentence's severity and whether it was manifestly excessive. This involved a detailed analysis of the sentencing judge’s reasoning and the application of relevant statutory provisions.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in not assessing Meoli’s unlikelihood of reoffending as the applicant had not specifically requested such an assessment. Additionally, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case and the sentencing judge’s comprehensive consideration of Meoli’s rehabilitation prospects. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal. The court held that the sentencing judge’s approach was appropriate under the circumstances, and the sentence imposed was justified.

Orders