R v Meyboom

Case [2012] ACTCA 48


THE QUEEN v CRAIG MEYBOOM
[2012] ACTCA 48 (11 December 2012)

APPEAL – In general and right of appeal – Criminal law – Crown appeal against sentence – General principles
APPEAL – Appeal against sentence – Manifest inadequacy – General principles – Multiple sentences – Accumulation and concurrency principles – Totality – Sentences not manifestly inadequate – No appellate intervention necessary
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Sex offences – Objective seriousness – Need for reasons to justify assertions that offences are “among the worst examples” – Use to be made of comparative cases

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26, 53(1), 54(1), 60(1)

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 337 [repealed]
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 13, 33(1)(m)–(r), (t), (v)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 308

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37E

Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 at 88
Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
Griffith v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
Hawkins v Hawkins (2009) 3 ACTLR 210
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 205 ALR 346
Kennewell v Rand [2006] ACTCA 10
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v BJ (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, 28 August 2007)
R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20

R v Ceissman (2001) 160 FLR 252

R v Chatfield [2012] ACTCA 32
R v Clarke [1996] 2 VR 520
R v Eisenach [2011] ACTCA 2
R v Ellis (1993) 68 A Crim R 449
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
R v King [2008] ACTCA 12
R v Maloney and Sione (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Connolly J, 12 March 2004)
R v Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98
R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24
R v Robertson [2010] ACTCA 19
R v Thorn [2010] ACTCA 10
R v TW (2011) 6 ACTLR 18
R v Twala (unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Badgery-Parker J, 4 November 1994)
R v WA (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Penfold J, 17 June 2010)
Rama v The Queen [2006] ACTCA 25
Ritter v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 121
Tu v The Queen (2011) 205 A Crim R 566
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 1994

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 11 – 2011
No. SCC 353A of 2007
No. SCC 353B of 2007

Judges:         Refshauge, Penfold and North JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            11 December 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 11 – 2011
  )          No. SCC 353A of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No. SCC 353B of 2007
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Continue reading R v Meyboom

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48
Case
[2012] ACTCA 48
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crown appealed against the sentences imposed on the respondent, Meyboom, by the District Court of New South Wales. The respondent had pleaded guilty to a number of offences, including sexual assault offences. The Crown contended that the sentences were manifestly inadequate.

The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were so inadequate as to be unjust, thereby warranting appellate intervention. This involved considering the principles of sentencing, including the objective seriousness of the offences, the application of the totality principle in the context of multiple sentences, and the proper use of comparative case law in justifying assertions about the seriousness of particular offences.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal. It found that the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors, including the objective seriousness of the offences and the need for concurrency in sentencing. The Court reiterated that for a sentence to be considered manifestly inadequate, it must be demonstrably unjust, and that mere disagreement with the sentence is insufficient. The Court also noted that while comparative cases are useful, they are not determinative, and the sentencing judge's reasons for imposing the particular sentences were adequate.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

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.