Regina v Adam Eli MEYER - [2002] NSWCCA 451

Reported Decision:
(2002) 135 A Crim R 438

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v Adam Eli MEYER [2002] NSWCCA 451

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60351/02

HEARING DATE(S): 13/11/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 December 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA
Adam Eli MEYER (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Dowd J at 2; Bell J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/1316

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL : PJP Power SC (Crown)
P Byrne SC (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor
RF Bergagnin & Co (Applicant)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Justices Act 1902

CASES CITED:
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Regina v Foster [2001] NSWCCA 215
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v JCE [2000] NSWCCA 498; 120 A Crim R 18
R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Wegener [1999] NSWCCA 405
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17

DECISION: Leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences granted; Allow the appeal; Sentences imposed in the District Court quashed and in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced in each case to a term of one year and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year, one month and two weeks; Each sentence is to be served by way of periodic detention and to commence on 25 May 2002; The first date upon which the applicant will be eligible for consideration for release to parole is 9 July 2003 or such later date as may be determined by reason of the applicant's imprisonment being extended pursuant to the provisions of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999

60351/02

WOOD CJ at CL
DOWD J
BELL J
Monday 2 December 2002

REGINA v Adam Eli MEYER

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Bell J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of her Honour.

2 DOWD J: I have had the advantage of reading the draft judgment of Bell J with whose reasons and proposed order, I agree.

3 BELL J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed on the applicant in the Sydney District Court on 17 May 2002.

4 The applicant was committed for sentence in accordance with the provisions of s 51A of the Justices Act 1902 on 18 January 2002 on three counts of making a false instrument with intent to induce another to accept the same as genuine contrary to s 300(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Act”), and three counts of using a false instrument with the intention of inducing another to accept the same as genuine contrary to s 300(2) of the Act. The maximum penalty provided for each offence is one of ten years imprisonment.

5 The applicant adhered to…

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 Regina v Adam Eli MEYER

Details

AGLC: Regina v Adam Eli MEYER [2002] NSWCCA 451
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 451
Decision Date: 2 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Adam Eli Meyer, appealed against the severity of the sentences imposed on him by the District Court for making and using false instruments with intent to defraud. The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed it, reducing the sentences. The applicant was originally sentenced to three years imprisonment for each of the six offences, to be served by way of periodic detention. The appeal centred on the sentencing judge's approach to determining the term of the sentence and the failure to set a non-parole period.

The primary issue was whether the sentencing judge erred in his approach to determining the sentence. The Court found that the sentencing judge did not follow the two-stage procedure required by the Sentencing Procedure Act 1999. The judge first determined the appropriate custodial sentence and then decided it should be served by way of periodic detention, rather than first fixing the term and then considering alternative custodial sentences. This approach was contrary to the statutory scheme and amounted to error.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the appropriate sentence, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offences and the applicant's subjective circumstances, including his early guilty pleas, cooperation with authorities, and genuine remorse. The Court decided that a sentence of one year and six months imprisonment for each offence, to be served by way of periodic detention, was appropriate. The non-parole period was set at one year, one month and two weeks, and the sentences were to commence on 25 May 2002. The applicant would be eligible for parole consideration on 9 July 2003, subject to any extension under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.

Orders