R v Mereb; R v Younan

The Crown has appealed against the sentence imposed by the Primary Judge on two respondents, Mereb and Younan, for their involvement in a tax fraud scheme amounting to a shortfall of approximately $1 million. The appeal concerns the adequacy of the sentence, specifically the length of the sentence and the non-parole period. The Crown argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the offence or provide the necessary deterrent effect. The respondents argued that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances and the mitigating factors considered by the Primary Judge.

The court had to consider whether the sentences imposed by the Primary Judge were manifestly inadequate and whether there was an error in imposing a single non-parole period of 2 years. The Crown submitted that the High Court's approval of the statement of principle in Ruha v R made it clear that the necessary deterrent and punitive effects of sentences for serious tax fraud must be reflected both in the head sentence and in any provision for earlier release from custody. The Crown submitted that the sentences imposed in this case did not satisfy those tests. The respondents argued that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances and the mitigating factors considered by the Primary Judge.

The court found that the Primary Judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors, including the impact of the penalties on the respondents' personal financial positions. The court found that the Primary Judge had not given too much weight to the potential impact of the penalties and that there was a factual basis for finding that the penalties would constitute significant extra curial punishment. The court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly inadequate and that there was no error in imposing a single non-parole period of 2 years. The appeal was dismissed.

No orders were made by the court.