Legal Research
Cases
Solicitor-General v Meyer

Solicitor-General v Meyer

Case [2022] NZHC 2692 18 October 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE UNREDACTED VERSION OF THIS JUDGMENT PROHIBITED

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 AND S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2022-463-128

CRI-2022-463-136 [2022] NZHC 2692

BETWEEN
SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Applicant/proposed appellant

AND

JAYDEN DESMOND MEYER

Respondent

Hearing: 11 October 2022

Appearances:

MF Laracy and BCL Charmley for the Applicant/proposed appellant

RM Adams and JW Howell for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 October 2022 at 2.15pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………………………

Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington/Auckland To: R Adams, Tauranga
J Howell, Tauranga

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v MEYER [2022] NZHC 2692 [18 October 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Meyer faced a range of charges in the Youth Court for serious sexual offending involving five victims. This included four charges of sexual violation by rape against four of the victims. Mr Meyer was 16 years old at the time of his offending and his victims were 15 years old. Mr Meyer pleaded not guilty to the charges, his position being that the sexual conduct in question was either consensual or he had a reasonable belief in consent. Following trial in the Youth Court, the Youth Court Judge found all of the charges proven.

[2] On the Crown’s application, Mr Meyer was then convicted and transferred to the District Court for sentencing. The District Court Judge (being the same Judge who had presided over the proceedings in the Youth Court) sentenced Mr Meyer to nine months’ home detention (with a range of special conditions), 12 months’ post-detention conditions, together with judicial monitoring.

[3] The Solicitor-General considers the sentence is manifestly inadequate and that it requires correction on appeal. The appeal was filed some six weeks out of time and accordingly leave to appeal is required. An unusual feature of this case is that the Crown’s position throughout the proceedings in the lower courts was that a sentence of imprisonment was not appropriate. It endorsed a sentence of home detention.

[4] As at the date of this judgment, Mr Meyer has served just over three months of his nine-month sentence of home detention, and is approximately six months through a 12 month youth sexual offending rehabilitative programme.

Background – Mr Meyer’s offending

[5]The charges against Mr Meyer comprised the following:

(a)sexual violation by rape x 4;1

(b)sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (anal) x 1;2

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a) and 128B. Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
2 Sections 128(1)(b) and 128B. Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.

(c)sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (oral) x 1;3

(d)sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (digital) x 2;4 and

(e)indecent assault x 2.5

[6] As noted, Mr Meyer’s offending was against five victims, to whom I will refer in this judgment as S, T, U, V and W. As also noted, all were aged 15 years at…

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 Solicitor-General v Meyer

Details

AGLC: Solicitor-General v Meyer [2022] NZHC 2692
Case: [2022] NZHC 2692
Decision Date: 18 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Crown sought leave to appeal out of time against a sentence of nine months' home detention imposed on Mr Meyer, who had been convicted of multiple counts of sexual violation by rape and indecent assault against five teenage girls. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and required correction on appeal. The appeal was filed six weeks out of time, and the Crown sought leave to appeal out of time. The court considered the principles applicable to applications for leave to appeal out of time, including the interests of justice and the strength of the appeal. The court also considered the principles applicable where the Solicitor-General's appeal sought to substitute a community-based sentence with one of imprisonment. The court found that the District Court's sentence was manifestly inadequate, but the interests of justice were best served by declining the Crown's application for leave to appeal out of time. The court considered the effect of the Crown's change in stance and the delay in bringing the appeal, which had the potential to undermine Mr Meyer's progress in rehabilitation and have a detrimental impact on his mental health. The court also emphasised the importance of transparency in the sentencing process and the need for public confidence in the administration of justice. The court declined the Crown's application for leave to appeal out of time, and the appeal was dismissed. The court did not consider the cross-appeal against the decision to transfer the proceeding from the Youth Court to the District Court for sentencing, as the Crown's application for leave to appeal out of time was declined.

Orders