R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255

R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255

The sentencing discretion miscarried because the judge imposed wholly concurrent sentences for numerous distinct break, enter and steal offences committed over a lengthy period, including offences committed while on parole; failed properly to reflect Form 1 matters; failed to apply the standard non-parole period provisions for s 112(2) offences; and gave disproportionate weight to the respondent's youth and rehabilitation. The resulting sentences were manifestly inadequate and required appellate intervention in the public interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court; Court of Criminal Appeal Resentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences quashed; respondent resentenced; eligible for release to parole on 11 December 2009.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'youthful Offender' 'form 1 Offences' 'parole Breach']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'youthful Offender' 'form 1 Offences' 'parole Breach']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court; Court of Criminal Appeal Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for multiple break, enter and steal offences were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing wholly concurrent sentences for multiple repeat offending committed over a lengthy period, including offending committed while on parole.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give appropriate weight to Form 1 matters.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the standard non-parole period for offences under s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether the sentencing judge gave disproportionate weight to youth, rehabilitation and subjective material at the expense of objective seriousness, general deterrence and specific deterrence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing discretion miscarried because the judge imposed wholly concurrent sentences for numerous distinct break, enter and steal offences committed over a lengthy period, including offences committed while on parole; failed properly to reflect Form 1 matters; failed to apply the standard non-parole period provisions for s 112(2) offences; and gave disproportionate weight to the respondent's youth and rehabilitation. The resulting sentences were manifestly inadequate and required appellate intervention in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences quashed; respondent resentenced; eligible for release to parole on 11 December 2009.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The sentences imposed by Acting Judge Moore are quashed.' 'Counts 2, 3 and 4: fixed terms of 7 months each to date from 12 December 2005 and to expire on 11 July 2006.' 'Count 5: fixed term of 10 months to date from 12 March 2006 and to expire on 11 January 2007.' 'Count 1 (Form 1):...