R v Miechel - [2006] VSC 359

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1492 of 2004

THE QUEEN

DAVID MIECHEL

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 August 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 August 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Miechel
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 359

---

Burglary – Trafficking large commercial quantity of drugs – Serving police officer – Problems associated with incarceration for police officers.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan	Ms L Thompson Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Lincoln	Mr S Schembri Schembri & Co

HER HONOUR:

David Miechel, on 26 May 2006, a jury convicted you of seven counts on the presentment being Count 1, burglary and Count 2, theft. Each of those offences carry a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment. Counts 3 and 4 being counts of trafficking a large commercial quantity of drugs. Each of those offences carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Count 5, trafficking in a commercial quantity of drugs which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment and Counts 6 and 7 being counts of trafficking simpliciter, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.

As a result of your convictions on Counts 3, 4 and 5, you fall to be sentenced as a serious drug offender pursuant to ss. 6C and 6F of the Sentencing Act. Section 6E of the Act further states, "Every term of imprisonment imposed by a court on a serious offender for a relevant offence must, unless otherwise directed by the court, be served cumulatively on any uncompleted sentence or sentences of imprisonment imposed on that offender, whether before or at the same time as that term".

I do make a declaration that you are a serious drug offender in respect of those counts, but, in my view, if appropriate sentences are imposed for each of the offences and they were all made cumulative, it would clearly offend against the principle of totality and accordingly I intend to direct that there be partial cumulation only on the sentences for individual offences.

Consistent with the verdict of the jury, I find as a fact that on 27 September 2003 you together with Terry Hodson entered the premises at 23 Dublin Street, East Oakleigh. You went to those premises to steal a large variety of drugs that you knew or believed were secreted in the premises. You had that knowledge as a result of your occupation, that of being a member of the Major Drug Investigation Group. You were part of a team that were conducting an operation and surveillance on those premises and accordingly, you had access to telephone intercept material which gave you information as to the persons who may or may not have been present, the location of the drugs, information on the movement of drugs and money within those premises.

You had access to floorplans of the house, knowledge of the neighbours and…

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 Miechel

Details

AGLC: R v Miechel [2006] VSC 359
Case: [2006] VSC 359
Decision Date: 18 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Miechel, the appellant, Miechel, was convicted of burglary and trafficking a large commercial quantity of drugs. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Miechel, a serving police officer, was found guilty of entering a residence with the intent to commit a crime and trafficking a significant amount of drugs. The prosecution argued that the appellant's actions demonstrated a breach of his duty as a police officer and an abuse of the trust placed in him by the community.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the appellant's status as a police officer influenced the severity of his crimes and whether his incarceration would have unique consequences due to his profession. The court considered the nature of Miechel's crimes, the impact of his actions on public trust, and the potential difficulties he might face if incarcerated.

The court held that the appellant's position as a police officer did not absolve him of criminal responsibility but did warrant consideration in sentencing. It was determined that Miechel's crimes were serious and undermined public trust in law enforcement. However, the court also recognised that incarcerating a police officer could present specific challenges, including potential safety risks and difficulties in reintegration into society. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the appellant's crimes warranted a significant custodial sentence but allowed for a period of reflection and potential rehabilitation during his incarceration.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for the appellant, with specific provisions to address the unique challenges of his incarceration as a former police officer.

Orders