Gundry v The King - [2025] VSCA 233

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0046

LOUISE GUNDRY	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	Emerton P and Lyons JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 August 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 233
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2025] VCC 36 (Judge Hawkins)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Substantial theft by employee of small business over several years – Whether early guilty plea given appropriate weight – Whether applicant demonstrated genuine remorse – Where only part of stolen monies recovered – Where victims required to issue proceedings and pay legal costs to effect partial recovery of stolen monies – No evidence that offender sought to engage with victims concerning repayment of monies – Plea of guilty not necessarily indicative of an expression of remorse – Judge correct to conclude only some limited remorse – No error established – Leave to appeal refused.

Crimes Act 1958, s 74.

Potter v The King [2023] VSCA 104; R v Gray [1977] VR 225; R v Starr [2002] VSCA 180; Repac v The King [2023] VSCA 313, considered.

Mohtadi v The Queen [2018] VSCA 238, applied.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr D McGlone
Respondent:		Ms J Warren with Ms S Goegan
Solicitors
Applicant:	Marshall Jovanovska Ralph Criminal Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON P
LYONS JA:

Introduction

On 6 December 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft of a total amount of $178,252,[1] which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The applicant was sentenced on 30 January 2025 to 18 months’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 12 months.
[1]Contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against her sentence on the following proposed ground:
The learned trial judge erred by finding that:
(a)the plea of guilty was entered after a contested committal;
(b)the applicant had not expressed genuine remorse; and
(c)the applicant had not paid any restitution.
The applicant submitted that, viewed in totality, the cumulative effect of the three alleged errors resulted in a material error which vitiated the sentencing discretion.
For the reasons that follow, we would refuse leave to appeal.

The offending[2]

[2]Based on the Summary of Prosecution Opening, which was accepted by the applicant’s counsel as accurate.

Ms Gundry was charged with the theft of $178,252 from Mr Verandah Pty Ltd (‘Mr Verandah’) between 18 May 2015 and 12 July 2019.
Mr Verandah is a small, family-owned construction company which specialises in building verandahs, carports and garages. Mr Chris Dimos and his partner, Ms Gillian Vallak, own and operate Mr Verandah.
The applicant had been formally employed as an office manager by Mr Verandah since 2 June 2009, initially on a casual basis and then moving to a permanent role later that year. Her tasks included checking bank statements and cash flow, managing and banking all cheque and cash payments (including the…

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 Gundry v The King

Details

AGLC: Gundry v The King [2025] VSCA 233
Case: [2025] VSCA 233
Decision Date: 22 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gundry v The King, the appellant, Mr. Gundry, appealed against his sentence for substantial theft by an employee of a small business over several years. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the trial judge correctly assessed the mitigating factors of the early guilty plea and the level of remorse demonstrated by the appellant. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate given that only a portion of the stolen funds had been recovered, and the victims had to initiate proceedings and bear legal costs to partially retrieve the stolen monies.

The court was required to decide if the trial judge erred in not sufficiently weighting the early guilty plea and in assessing the level of remorse. The appellant argued that his plea and remorse warranted a more lenient sentence, whereas the Crown contended that the trial judge correctly balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors. The court also examined if the trial judge was correct in concluding that the appellant only showed limited remorse, considering that he did not seek to engage with the victims concerning the repayment of the stolen funds.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in weighing the mitigating factors. The court determined that the plea of guilty was not necessarily indicative of an expression of remorse and that the judge correctly assessed the level of remorse shown by the appellant as limited. The court noted that there was no evidence that the appellant had attempted to contact the victims to discuss the repayment of the stolen monies. The Court found no error in the trial judge's sentencing and dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the original sentence.

No further orders were made by the court, and the original sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the sentence, and the appeal was accordingly refused.

Orders