Tobias JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 8; Hidden J at 81
DECISION:
1. Leave to appeal against the sentences granted; 2. Sentences below set aside; 3. In lieu thereof, order that; (a) On the first count of murder, relating to Jackson Merritt, the applicant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 24 years, to commence on 2 September 2001, and to expire on 1 September 2025, with a non parole period of 18 years, to commence from 2 September 2001 and to expire on 1 September 2019; (b) On the second count of murder relating to Taylah Pringle, the applicant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 24 years, to commence on 2 September 2006, and to expire on 1 September 2030, with a non parole period set of 18 years, to commence on 2 September 2006 and to expire on 1 September 2024; (c) On the third count of murder relating to Mikaylah Merritt, the applicant be sentenced to imprisonment for 24 years, to commence on 2 September 2011 and to expire on 1 September 2035, with a non parole period of 17 years, which is similarly to commence on 2 September 2011 and to expire on 1 September 2028.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - applicant charged with 3 counts of murder - pleas of guilty - 3 sentences of life imprisonment - whether sentences manifestly excessive - whether subjective circumstances enabled or required trial judge to impose lesser sentences - relevant principles concerning the application of s 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999.
[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 Merritt
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19
Case
[2004] NSWCCA 19
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Merritt involves the applicant, who was convicted and sentenced to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the murders of three victims. The applicant pleaded guilty to all charges. The applicant appealed against the severity of the sentences, arguing they were manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, taking into account the subjective circumstances of the case, and whether these circumstances enabled or required the trial judge to impose lesser sentences. The court also needed to consider the relevant principles concerning the application of section 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999.
In assessing the appeal, the court considered the severity of the crimes, the mitigating factors, and the sentencing principles applicable under the Act. The court held that while the crimes were of the utmost gravity, the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the trial judge had appropriately considered the subjective circumstances of the case, including the nature of the applicant's involvement in the crimes and the level of premeditation. The court further found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in accordance with the principles set out in the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The court's final orders were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentences of three consecutive terms of life imprisonment were upheld.