R v Meyn, John Michael (No 6) - [2013] NSWSC 243

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MEYN, John Michael (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 243
Hearing dates: 8 March 2013
Decision date: 28 March 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Offender convicted. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of sixteen years and six months from 8 April 2011 with a parole period of five years and six months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - domestic homicide - intoxication - conviction following trial - self defence rejected by jury - whether intent to kill - mitigating factors - whether remorseful - general deterrence, retribution and denunciation.
Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1900 - s 19A, s 558
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 21A, s 44(2), s 54A, s 61(1)
- Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
Cases Cited: - MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
- Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
- Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
- R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168
- R v Chen [2010] NSWSC 64
- R v Christov (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 1179
- R v Heffernan [2005] NSWSC 739
- R v Koloamatangi [2011] NSWCCA 288
- R v Meyn (No 1) [2012] NSWSC 1441
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown (Prosecutor)
John Michael Meyn (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
T.W. Thorpe (Crown)
Keith Chapple SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Crown (Director of Public Prosecutions)
George Sten & Co (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/116480
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 19 November 2012 John Michael Meyn was arraigned before me on an indictment that charged that he on 8 April 2011, at Colyton, did murder Yvette Rathbone. At the time of her death, Ms Rathbone was his former de facto partner, and the mother of their two young children.

The trial proceeded but for reasons that are unnecessary to describe the jury had to be discharged. On 28 November 2012 the offender was again arraigned before me and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial then proceeded to a verdict. On 14 December 2012, the jury returned a verdict of guilty to the charge of murder.

On 8 March 2013 I heard submissions on behalf of the offender and the Crown on sentence.

At the outset I note that it was not submitted by the Crown that I should impose the maximum penalty of life imprisonment (Crimes Act 1900, s 19A). I am required to impose a life sentence if I am satisfied that the level of culpability involved in the commission of the offence was so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that form of sentence (Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, "the Sentencing Act", s 61(1)). This is not such a case.

Pursuant to s 54A of the Sentencing Act the standard non-parole period for the offence of murder is twenty years. The Sentencing…

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 Meyn, John Michael (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Meyn, John Michael (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 243
Case: [2013] NSWSC 243
Decision Date: 28 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, John Michael Meyn, was convicted of murder following a trial. The deceased was his partner. The case came before the court for sentencing, focusing on the nature of the offence, the circumstances, and the appropriate punishment. The legal issues before the court included the determination of whether the accused intended to kill, the impact of intoxication on culpability, and the relevance of mitigating factors, including any expression of remorse.

The court examined the evidence and submissions to address these issues. It considered the accused's level of intoxication at the time of the offence, the circumstances leading to the death, and the jury's rejection of the self-defence plea. The court also evaluated the mitigating factors presented, such as the accused's expression of remorse, and weighed these against the principles of general deterrence, retribution, and denunciation. The court concluded that while the accused was significantly intoxicated, this did not negate the intent to kill. The mitigating factors, including the accused's remorse, were considered but did not sufficiently outweigh the severity of the crime.

The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence would reflect the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the principles of justice. The accused was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific regard to the circumstances of the offence, the accused's culpability, and the broader objectives of sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in cases of domestic homicide. The final orders included the imposition of a sentence reflecting the court's considerations of the principles of justice and the need to protect society.

Orders