Legal Research
Cases
R v Meers

R v Meers

Case [1998] TASSC 32 7 April 1998

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Appeal

Retribution

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

32/1998

PARTIES: R

v
MEERS, Simon James
MOLES, Leigh John

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 10/1998

CCA 11/1998

DELIVERED:  7 April 1998
HEARING DATE/S:  10 March 1998
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ, Wright J and Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against sentence - Appeal by Attorney-General or other Crown Law Officer - Powers of appellate court - Generally - Discretion of court - Whether to interfere - Manifestly inadequate sentence.

R v Percy [1975] Tas SR 62, R v Causby [1984] Tas R 54, R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561, R v Gordon [1994] 71 A Crim R 459, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [1021]

Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against sentence - Appeal by Attorney-General or other Crown Law Officer - Application to increase sentence - Offences against the person - Grievous bodily harm and aggravated burglary - Manifestly inadequate sentence.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [1023]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  D J Bugg QC, K Eales
             Respondent:  W Hodgman
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Wallace Wilkinson & Webster

Judgment category classification:
Court Computer Code:
Judgment ID Number:  32/1998
Number of pages:  16

Serial No
File No CCA 10/1998
CCA 11/1998

THE QUEEN v MEERS and MOLES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX CJ
WRIGHT J
SLICER J
1998

Order of the Court

Serial No
File No CCA 10/1998
CCA 11/1998

THE QUEEN v MEERS and MOLES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX CJ
1998

For the reasons which are to be given by Wright J and which I have had the advantage of reading in draft form, I agree that the sentence of one year's imprisonment, the execution of the last ten months of which was suspended on condition that the respondents be of good behaviour for a period of two years, was manifestly inadequate having regard to the gravity of their conduct. I respectfully adopt his statement of the factual background to the appeal and his characterisation of the respondents' behaviour as extremely serious because it involved a violent intrusion by two strong young men into a family dwelling in the middle of the night whereafter they deliberately set upon an elderly man with punches and kicks and inflicted injuries properly described as "grievous". Notwithstanding a lengthy and painful convalescence, he has still not completely recovered from them.
It is, accordingly, incumbent on this Court to exercise its own discretion in passing an appropriate sentence. This, it must be admitted, is a very difficult task because of the need to balance the requirement to condemn the conduct in question by imposing a sentence which gives effect to the retributive and deterrent aspects of punishment with the claims to some tempering of its severity which the powerful considerations of youth, contrition, previous good conduct…

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 Meers

Details

AGLC: R v Meers [1998] TASSC 32
Case: [1998] TASSC 32
Decision Date: 7 April 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania heard an appeal by the Crown against the sentences imposed on Simon James Meers and Leigh John Moles for their participation in aggravated burglary and causing grievous bodily harm. The respondents, driven by a belief that the victim had sexually abused Meers' sister many years earlier, assaulted the victim in his home. The Court found the original sentences, which were partially suspended, to be manifestly inadequate. The Court acknowledged the mitigating factors of the respondents' youth, lack of prior criminal records, remorse, and good character, but emphasized the gravity of the crimes committed, which involved a violent intrusion into a home and caused serious injury to an elderly man. The Court concluded that the original sentences did not adequately reflect the need for retribution, general deterrence, and denunciation of such serious criminal conduct. The Court imposed a new sentence of three years' imprisonment for each respondent, with the last twelve months of each sentence suspended on condition of good behavior for two years, and ordered each respondent to pay a victim of crime compensation levy.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and, if so, what appropriate sentence should be imposed. The Court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to balance the retributive and deterrent aspects of punishment with the mitigating factors of the respondents' youth, remorse, and good character. The Court also considered the principle of double jeopardy and the need to avoid manifest disparities in sentencing standards. The Court found that the original sentences did not sufficiently address the need for retribution and general deterrence and were therefore manifestly inadequate.

The Court's reasoning was based on the gravity of the crimes committed, the need for retribution and general deterrence, and the mitigating factors of the respondents' youth, remorse, and good character. The Court emphasized the unacceptability of engaging in violent acts of revenge, even if based on a mistaken belief. The Court also considered the principle of double jeopardy and the need to avoid manifest disparities in sentencing standards. The Court concluded that a sentence of three years' imprisonment, with the last twelve months suspended, was appropriate to mark the opprobrium in which the community holds this kind of behavior and to acknowledge the mitigating factors of the respondents' antecedents and remorse.

Orders