R v Meerdink and Pearce - [2010] QSC 158

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Richard John Meerdink and Jason Andrew Pearce [2010]
QSC 158
PARTIES: R v Richard John Meerdink and Jason Andrew Pearce
FILE NO/S: 442/09
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Sentence
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON: 13 May 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: Trial: 29/09/09 to 910/09
JUDGE: Applegarth J
COUNSEL: GJ Cummings for the Crown
F Richards for Richard John Meerdink
G McGuire for Jason Andrew Pearce
SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Legal Aid Queensland for the defendants

Richard John Meerdink and Jason Andrew Pearce, you are each to be sentenced for the offence that on or about 4 July 2008 at Maryborough you unlawfully killed Wayne Warren Ruks. You each pleaded not guilty to a charge of having murdered Mr Ruks. The jury at your trial found you not guilty of that offence. The jury found you, Mr Meerdink, guilty of manslaughter. Mr Pearce, you pleaded guilty to manslaughter at the start of the trial. Mr Pearce you are also to be sentenced for a summary offence to which you pleaded guilty at the end of the trial on 9 October 2009. The charge is that on 6 July 2008 at Maryborough you unlawfully had in your possession a thing, namely a water pipe that you used in connection with the smoking of a dangerous drug. Given the gravity of the offence of manslaughter for which you are to be sentenced, I do not impose a further penalty for that summary offence.

The circumstances of the offence

On 3 July 2008 at around 9 pm the two of you were walking past the Post Office Hotel in Bazaar Street, Maryborough when you encountered Mr Ruks. He was very drunk. When he died some hours later his blood alcohol level was 0.338. How intoxicated each of you were is hard to say. Ultimately, it is of marginal relevance because as the Chief Justice of this State observed in R v Dwyer [2008] QCA 117 at [6] “intoxication resulting form the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or drugs cannot generally be advanced as a circumstance mitigating the penalty to be imposed for violent crime committed while the offender was in that condition.”
Each of you had been drinking earlier that afternoon and evening, but you were not completely drunk or incoherent. Mr Power, who was sober and sitting outside the Post Office Hotel, where he was participating in a poker tournament, observed you as you were walking some 50 metres towards him. He did not observe either of you to be drunk, but Mr Meerdink you said to him that you and Mr Pearce were “having a blinder”, and were “pissed”. Mr Meerdink, you were carrying the bladder from a cask of wine. Mr Ruks made a grab for it. You then crossed the road away from the Port Office Hotel and Mr Ruks followed you. He was interested in obtaining some marijuana. He had asked Mr…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Meerdink and Pearce and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] QSC 158
Decision Date: 13/05/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richard John Meerdink and Jason Andrew Pearce were charged with the manslaughter of Wayne Warren Ruks, following a violent altercation in the churchyard of St Mary’s Church in Maryborough. Both defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder, but Meerdink was found guilty of manslaughter by the jury, while Pearce pleaded guilty to manslaughter at the beginning of the trial. The defendants were also charged with drug possession, but the court did not impose a penalty for this offence due to the severity of the manslaughter charge. The court considered various legal issues, including the defendants’ personal circumstances, the gravity of the offence, and the need for denunciation and deterrence. The court also compared the present case to various precedents, such as R v Matthews, R v Dwyer, and R v Richmond-Sinclair, among others. Based on these considerations, the court determined a sentencing range of nine to eleven years imprisonment for both defendants. Ultimately, Meerdink was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, and Pearce was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date set at 6 July 2012. The court also declared both defendants to be serious violent offenders and deemed their pre-sentence custody time as already served under their sentences.

Orders