R v Meizer - [2001] QCA 231

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Meizer [2001] QCA 231

PARTIES: R
v
MEIZER, Lyell Grant
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 254 of 2000
CA No 319 of 2000
DC No 1360 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Convictions & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 19 June 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 16 March 2001

JUDGES:
Williams JA, Moynihan SJA and Byrne J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER: In Appeal No 254 of 2000: Appeal against convictions dismissed.
In Appeal No 319 of 2000: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – OF COUNTS – BY STATUTE – SAME FACTS OR SERIES OF OFFENCES OF SAME OR SIMILAR CHARACTER – whether the joinder of charges of rape involving a number of women some time apart, on the one indictment was prejudicial to a fair trial.

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SIMILAR FACTS – ADMISSIBILITY – GENERALLY – whether admission of propensity evidence was unduly prejudicial to a fair trial – alleged conduct of a strikingly similar nature – whether conduct amounted to “Signature Evidence” where identity in issue

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – serial rapist convicted whilst on parole – whether sentence should be cumulative – whether 18 year sentence starting point within range

Corrective Services Act 1988, s 207B
Criminal Code, s 592A, s 597A
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 9(1)(e), s 9(2)(c),
s 9(2)(g), s 9(2)(l), s 9(2)(m), s 156A

Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441, followed
De Jesus v R (1986) 61 ALJR 1, distinguished
Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292, followed
Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, followed

R v Barclay [1999] QCA 457; CA No 272 of 1999, 3 December 1999, considered

R v Burley (CA No 449 of 1997), considered

R v Jackson (CA Nos 168 & 376 of 1987, 7 March 1988), distinguished

R v Killen (CA No 129 of 1991, 20 September 1991), distinguished

R v Mason and Saunders [1998] 2 Qd R 186, followed
R v O’Keefe [2000] 1 Qd R 564, considered

R v Shillingsworth [2001] QCA 172, CA No 331 of 2000, 11 May 2001, considered

Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528, followed

COUNSEL:
A F Maher for the applicant/appellant

M J Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Forest Lake Lawyers for the applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant, who was convicted of a series of sexual offences against three separate women, has appealed against the convictions and has sought leave to appeal against sentence. There were 17 counts in all before the jury; some charges resulted in a nolle prosequi at the…

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 Meizer

Details

AGLC: R v Meizer [2001] QCA 231
Case: [2001] QCA 231
Decision Date: 19 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Meizer involved an appellant convicted of multiple counts of rape involving several women. The appeals before the court raised issues regarding the joinder of counts, the admissibility of similar fact evidence, and the appropriateness of the sentence. The first appeal concerned the conviction and the second sought leave to appeal the sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the joinder of charges was prejudicial, the admissibility of evidence of similar fact, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The court examined whether the joinder of multiple counts of rape on one indictment was prejudicial, considering the offences were not part of a single continuous act but were separated by time. The court also assessed the admissibility of evidence of similar fact, determining whether such evidence, which was strikingly similar to the charged offences, was unduly prejudicial or constituted "signature evidence" pertinent to the identity of the offender. Furthermore, the court deliberated on the appropriateness of the sentence, considering the appellant was a serial rapist convicted while on parole, and whether the sentence should be cumulative and if the 18-year sentence starting point was within the appropriate range.

The High Court found that the joinder of charges did not prejudice the fairness of the trial, as the offences were properly joined under statutory provisions for similar facts or a series of offences of the same or similar character. The court also upheld the admissibility of the similar fact evidence, concluding it was relevant to the issue of identity and did not unduly prejudice the fairness of the trial. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that the 18-year starting point was appropriate, considering the appellant's history as a serial rapist and his breach of parole.

The court dismissed the appeal against the convictions and refused leave to appeal against the sentence. The convictions were upheld, and the sentence imposed was considered appropriate under the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

In Appeal No 254 of 2000: Appeal against convictions dismissed.

In Appeal No 319 of 2000: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Meizer [2001] QCA 231
PARTIES:	R v MEIZER, Lyell Grant (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 254 of 2000 CA No 319 of 2000 DC No 1360 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Convictions & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 March 2001
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Moynihan SJA and Byrne J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	In Appeal No 254 of 2000: Appeal against convictions dismissed. In Appeal No 319 of 2000: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – OF COUNTS – BY STATUTE – SAME FACTS OR SERIES OF OFFENCES OF SAME OR SIMILAR CHARACTER – whether the joinder of charges of rape involving a number of women some time apart, on the one indictment was prejudicial to a fair trial. CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SIMILAR FACTS – ADMISSIBILITY – GENERALLY – whether admission of propensity evidence was unduly prejudicial to a fair trial – alleged conduct of a strikingly similar nature – whether conduct amounted to “Signature Evidence” where identity in issue CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – serial rapist convicted whilst on parole – whether sentence should be cumulative – whether 18 year sentence starting point within range Corrective Services Act 1988, s 207B Criminal Code, s 592A, s 597A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 9(1)(e), s 9(2)(c), s 9(2)(g), s 9(2)(l), s 9(2)(m), s 156A Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441, followed De Jesus v R (1986) 61 ALJR 1, distinguished Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292, followed Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, followed R v Barclay [1999] QCA 457; CA No 272 of 1999, 3 December 1999, considered R v Burley (CA No 449 of 1997), considered R v Jackson (CA Nos 168 & 376 of 1987, 7 March 1988), distinguished R v Killen (CA No 129 of 1991, 20 September 1991), distinguished R v Mason and Saunders [1998] 2 Qd R 186, followed R v O’Keefe [2000] 1 Qd R 564, considered R v Shillingsworth [2001] QCA 172, CA No 331 of 2000, 11 May 2001, considered Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528, followed
COUNSEL:	A F Maher for the applicant/appellant M J Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Forest Lake Lawyers for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent