Martino v The King

Case [2024] NSWCCA 93


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Martino v R [2024] NSWCCA 93
Hearing dates: 22 May 2024
Date of orders: 12 June 2024
Decision date: 12 June 2024
Before: Harrison CJ at CL at [1];
Walton J at [2];
Chen J at [3]
Decision:

(1) Grant leave to the applicant to appeal against the sentence imposed on 11 August 2023.

(2) Dismiss the appeal against the sentence.

Catchwords:

CRIME – appeals – appeals against sentence – one count of dishonestly obtain by deception a financial advantage – where applicant is self-represented – where applicant has raised eight grounds of appeal – alleged error in the backdating of sentence to account for pre-sentence custody – alleged errors in weight afforded to various factual matters – no error by sentencing judge established – leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Borg v R; Gray v R [2020] NSWCCA 67

Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41

Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58; (2006) 160 A Crim R 145

Douar v R [2005] NSWCCA 455; (2005) 159 A Crim R 154

DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156

Mattiussi v R [2023] NSWCCA 289

Ocek v R [2023] NSWCCA 308

R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81; (2015) 70 MVR 412

R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272; (2006) 164 A Crim R 481

Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141

Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43

Toller v R [2021] NSWCCA 204

Wiggins v R [2010] NSWCCA 30

Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; (2012) 223 A Crim R 460

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Antonio Domenico Martino (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Applicant (self-represented)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/00241801
Publication restriction: Subject to order made pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) made by Noman SC DCJ
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Citation:

[2023] NSWDC 308

Date of Decision:
11 August 2023
Before:
Noman SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2018/00241801

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant, Antonio Domenico Martino, sought leave to appeal from the sentence imposed on him in respect of one count of dishonestly obtain by deception a financial advantage, contrary to s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). One further offence under s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act was taken into account upon sentencing on a Form 1. The offending involved the applicant providing identification documents of the victim to CBUS in order to induce CBUS to rollover the victim’s superannuation into a self-managed superannuation fund (‘SMSF’) established and controlled by the applicant. A total of $58,005.37 was rolled over from the victim’s CBUS account into the…

Continue reading Martino v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Martino v The King [2024] NSWCCA 93
Case
[2024] NSWCCA 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Martino v The King, the applicant, Martino, appealed against his sentence for obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Martino, who appeared self-represented, raised eight grounds of appeal, including an alleged error in the backdating of his sentence to account for time spent in pre-sentence custody and alleged errors in the weight afforded to various factual matters by the sentencing judge.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in the calculation of the sentence and the weight given to specific factual matters. Martino argued that the sentence should have been backdated to the date he was first taken into custody and that certain factual findings were not adequately supported by evidence. The court needed to determine if these alleged errors were significant enough to warrant a reduction in the sentence or a re-sentencing hearing.

The court found that no significant errors had been made by the sentencing judge. The calculation of the sentence, including the backdating to account for pre-sentence custody, was deemed correct. Additionally, the weight given to the various factual matters was found to be appropriate and supported by the evidence presented at trial. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had not erred in any material way. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.