Legal Research
Cases
R v Merrin

R v Merrin

Case [2007] NSWCCA 255 28 August 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 174 A Crim R 100

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255

HEARING DATE(S): 22/08/2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 August 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Howie J at 2; Fullerton J at 63

DECISION: The appeal is allowed. The sentences imposed by Acting Judge Moore are quashed. In lieu the following sentences are imposed: Counts 2, 3 and 4 - Fixed terms of 7 months each from 12 December 2005 to expire on 11 July 2006; Count 5 - Fixed term of 10 months from 12 March 2006 and to expire on 11 January 2007; Count 1 (Form 1) - Non-parole of 14 months to commence on 12 July 2006 and to expire on 11 September 2007 with a balance of term of 8 months; Counts 8 and 9 - Fixed terms of 15 months each to commence on 12 June 2008 and to expire on 11 September 2009; Count 7 (Form 1) - Non-parole period of 18 months from 12 June 2008 with a balance of term of 2 years and 5 months. The respondent is eligible to be released to parole on 11 December 2009.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Crown Appeal - Break, enter and steal offences - Concurrent sentences - whether appropriate for multiple repeat offending - standard non-parole period - failure to take into account - youthful offender - whether sentences manifestly inadequate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 112(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 54B

CASES CITED: R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79
R v MAK and MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381, (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
Re Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1048
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616
R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
Marshall v R [2007] NSWCCA 24
R v Mostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Cunninghan [2006] NSWCCA 176

PARTIES: Regina v Christopher Gary Merrin

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3212

COUNSEL: T. Thorpe - Crown
H. Dhanji - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/31/0173; 07/31/1025

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Moore ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 15/06/2007

2007/3212
GILES JA
HOWIE J
FULLERTON J

TUESDAY 28 AUGUST 2007

REGINA v Christopher Gary MERRIN

Judgment

1 GILES JA: I agree with Howie J.

2 HOWIE J: The respondent to this Crown appeal is a young man who over a period of about two years committed, or was a participant in, 16 offences of break, enter and steal on domestic premises. A number of the offences were aggravated by the fact that…

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 Merrin

Details

AGLC: R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 255
Decision Date: 28 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Merrin, the appellant was convicted of multiple break, enter and steal offences, and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. The Crown appealed the sentences, arguing that they were manifestly inadequate, particularly in light of the appellant's history of repeat offending. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge failed to adequately consider the appellant's youth and multiple offending history in setting the sentences, and whether the standard non-parole periods for the offences were appropriately applied.

The Court of Appeal considered the relevant legal principles and precedents, including the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offending, to deter the offender and others, and to provide appropriate punishment and rehabilitation. The Court also noted the importance of taking into account the offender's age and history, and the need for sentences to be proportionate and not manifestly inadequate. The Court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the appellant's youth and multiple offending history in setting the sentences, and had not applied the standard non-parole periods appropriately.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentences were manifestly inadequate, and quashed the original sentences and substituted new sentences with a higher non-parole period. The Court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offending, to take into account the offender's age and history, and to provide appropriate punishment and rehabilitation. The Court also noted the importance of proportionality and consistency in sentencing, and the need for sentences to be reviewed and adjusted where necessary to ensure that justice is served.

Orders