Legal Research
Cases
R v Merrick (No 5)

R v Merrick (No 5)

Case [2016] NSWSC 661 23 May 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Merrick (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 661
Hearing dates: 9 May 2016
Date of orders: 23 May 2016
Decision date: 23 May 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 8 years and 3 months and a balance of term of the sentence of 2 years and 9 months. The total term of imprisonment is one of 11 years.
The sentence will date from 22 March 2016. The offender will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 21 June 2024. The total term of the sentence will expire on 21 March 2027.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – manslaughter – verdict of guilty after trial – single blow occasioning death – domestic violence – question of the use to be made of victim impact statements – relevance of a conditional offer of plea of guilty prior to trial – importance of general deterrence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Ernest Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Field v R [2015] NSWCCA 332
Hopley v R [2008] NSWCCA 105
Morton v R [2014] NSWCCA 8
R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1995, unrep)
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 52 MVR 528
R v Bryce (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 1184
R v Cardoso (2003) 137 A Crim R 535
R v Carroll; Carroll v R [2010] NSWCCA 55
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Johnson [2003] NSWCCA 129
R v Lavender [2005] HCA 37; (2005) 222 CLR 67
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Thompson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2002) 49 NSWLR 383
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
Villalon v R [2015] NSWCCA 229
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Ross Albert Merrick
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Campbell (Crown)
Ms T Evers (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Armstrong Felton (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/00369082
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

During the course of his trial for the murder of Marika Ninness, which commenced before this Court on 29 February 2016, Ross Merrick gave an account of the events of the night of 7 December 2013 which was wholly inconsistent with either the commission of the offence of murder, with which he stood indicted, or the commission of the statutory alternative of manslaughter. By the verdict of guilty to the alternative charge, returned by the jury on 29 March 2016, the jury necessarily rejected his evidence as to what had occurred that night.
The offender sought acquittal for both charges…

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 Merrick (No 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Merrick (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 661
Case: [2016] NSWSC 661
Decision Date: 23 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Merrick (No 5) involved the appellant, Merrick, who had pleaded guilty to several charges, including armed robbery. The matter was before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the validity of Merrick's guilty plea and the subsequent sentence imposed by the lower court. The court was required to determine whether Merrick's plea had been entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and with an understanding of the consequences. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate and whether there had been any error in the application of the law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Merrick's plea had been validly entered. This involved examining the circumstances surrounding the plea and assessing whether Merrick had been provided with adequate legal advice and whether he had fully understood the charges and potential penalties. The court also had to consider whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was within the bounds of what was legally permissible and whether the court had taken into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

The High Court found that Merrick's plea had indeed been entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and with an understanding of the consequences. The court held that Merrick had been adequately informed of his rights and the potential penalties by his legal representative and had demonstrated a clear understanding of the charges against him. The court also determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors and adhering to the principles of proportionality and justice. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.

Orders