Mazomenos v The King; Sandell v The King; Pinnington v The King

This case involved appeals by Mazomenos, Sandell, and Pinnington against sentences imposed by a single judge. The appeals raised overlapping issues concerning the severity of the sentences, the application of the parity principle between co-offenders, and whether the sentencing judge erred in importing a specific mental element of "serious harm" into the offence of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, contrary to the principle established in *R v De Simoni*. Further grounds of appeal related to the judge's consideration of the applicants' disadvantaged backgrounds, the assessment of remorse and rehabilitation prospects, and the factual basis for sentencing certain applicants.

The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the sentencing judge had properly applied relevant legal principles. Specifically, the court considered whether the parity principle was breached in sentencing Sandell and Mazomenos for manslaughter, and whether the judge erred in finding an intention to cause "serious harm" when sentencing for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. The court also examined whether the judge adequately considered the applicants' disadvantaged backgrounds, as per *Bugmy v The Queen*, and whether certain factual findings and sentencing approaches, particularly concerning Sandell's trafficking offences and association with a motorcycle club, were legally sound.

The Court refused Mazomenos and Pinnington leave to appeal. For Sandell, the court set aside his conviction for trafficking a controlled drug (clonazepam) as no offence was disclosed. Leave to appeal was granted to Sandell on specific grounds relating to the sentencing for manslaughter, but refused on the remaining grounds. Ultimately, the Court dismissed each of the appeals against sentence.