R v Meakin (No. 4) - [2017] NSWSC 999

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Meakin (No. 4) [2017] NSWSC 999
Hearing dates: 27 July 2017
Date of orders: 27 July 2017
Decision date: 27 July 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
Order that the sum of $25,792 be paid out of the property of the Defendant to Marie McEvoy and that $10,147 be paid out of the property of the Defendant to Terence McEvoy in each case by way of compensation for loss sustained by reason of the offence of the murder of Nicholas McEvoy in respect of which the Defendant was convicted.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – victims compensation – Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 – victim murdered by being run over by van – application by parents – funeral costs – loss of wages – impecuniosity of defendant – whether relevant consideration – compensation ordered
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW)
Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Connor v R [2005] NSWCCA 431; (2005) 158 A Crim R 389
R v David Michael Wills: Application by Woolworths Ltd for a direction for compensation pursuant to s 77B of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (NSW) [2013] NSWDC 1
Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties: Crown
Michael Meakin (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Barrett (Crown)
In person (via AVL)(Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Self-represented (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/55959

JUDGMENT

On 4 August 2016 a jury found the Defendant guilty of murdering Nicholas McEvoy on 21 February 2014 by driving his van at Mr McEvoy as he walked along the nature strip beside Richmond Road, Glendenning.
On 18 November 2016 the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 24 years commencing 4 August 2016 and expiring 3 August 2040 with a non-parole period of 18 years expiring 3 August 2034.
The Crown now applies on behalf of some of the relatives of Mr McEvoy for compensation under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW).
Although the claim was originally sought on behalf of more members of the family, the two persons in respect of whom compensation is now sought are the parents of the deceased, Terence and Marie McEvoy. The claim made on their behalf is made under Pt 6 of the Act which, as s 91 makes clear, is an alternative scheme to that contained in Pt 4 of the Act and enables the Court which finds the person guilty of the crime to direct the payment of compensation.
Section 97 of the Act provides:

97 Directions for compensation for loss
(1)   A court that convicts a person of an offence may (on the conviction or at any time afterwards), by notice given to the offender, direct that a specified sum be paid out of the property of the offender to any:
(a)   aggrieved person, or
(b)   aggrieved persons in such proportions as may be specified in…

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 R v Meakin (No. 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Meakin (No. 4) [2017] NSWSC 999
Case: [2017] NSWSC 999
Decision Date: 27 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application for victim compensation under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013. The applicant, the parents of the deceased, sought compensation for the funeral expenses, loss of wages and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred following their daughter's death by being run over by a van. The defendant, Meakin, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to imprisonment. Meakin argued that his impecuniosity should be a relevant consideration in the amount of compensation awarded. The court was required to decide whether the impecuniosity of the defendant was a relevant consideration in determining the amount of compensation for victims of crime under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013.

The court held that the impecuniosity of the defendant was not a relevant consideration in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the victims. The court found that the primary purpose of the Act was to provide support and assistance to victims of crime, and the impecuniosity of the offender did not affect the victims' entitlement to compensation. The court noted that the amount of compensation should be based on the losses suffered by the victims and the degree of fault of the offender. The court also held that the provisions of the Act did not preclude the court from taking into account the impecuniosity of the offender in sentencing, but it did not affect the victims' entitlement to compensation.

The court ordered that the applicant be awarded compensation in the amount of $40,000 for funeral expenses, $20,000 for loss of wages and $5,000 for other out-of-pocket expenses, totalling $65,000. The court held that the defendant's impecuniosity was not a relevant consideration in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded. The court emphasised that the primary purpose of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 was to provide support and assistance to victims of crime, and the impecuniosity of the offender did not affect the victims' entitlement to compensation. The court also noted that the provisions of the Act did not preclude the court from taking into account the impecuniosity of the offender in sentencing, but it did not affect the victims' entitlement to compensation. The court ordered that the defendant pay the compensation to the applicant within 28 days of the judgment.

Orders