Legal Research
Cases
Menzies v The King

Menzies v The King

Case [2024] NSWCCA 248 20 December 2024

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Menzies v R [2024] NSWCCA 248
Hearing dates: 18 October 2024
Date of orders: 20 December 2024
Decision date: 20 December 2024
Before: Stern JA at [1]
Dhanji J at [2]
Faulkner J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeals against sentence – disparity between sentences –– whether justifiable sense of grievance by reason of sentence imposed on co-offender – ground not made out

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 22A

Cases Cited:
Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540; [2010] NSWCCA 60
Magaming v The Queen (2013) 252 CLR 381; [2013] HCA 40
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2023) 278 CLR 1; [2023] HCA 3
Vujinovic v R [2024] NSWCCA 10

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Simon Menzies (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Kluss (Applicant)
P Hogan (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Rake Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/00222667
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2023] NSWDC 535

Date of Decision:

29 September 2023

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/00222667

JUDGMENT

STERN JA: I agree with Faulkner J.
DHANJI J: I agree with Faulkner J.
FAULKNER J: On 12 May 2023 a jury found Simon Menzies guilty of 14 offences relating to dealing with property reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime. The offences were contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which applies where the value of the property is less than $100,000.
An offence contrary to s 193C(2) carries a maximum penalty of 3 years’ imprisonment. There is no relevant standard non-parole period. On 29 September 2023 Mr Menzies was sentenced by King SC DCJ. For all but two of the offences, his Honour recorded indicative sentences of 18 months. For the other two offences, his Honour recorded indicative sentences of 6 months. His Honour imposed an aggregate sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with a 3 year non-parole period to commence on 4 August 2023 and expire on 3 August 2027. Mr Menzies will first be eligible for release on 3 August 2026.
Mr Menzies applies for leave to appeal against the sentence. Should leave be granted, the Notice of Appeal contains a single ground, being that the disparity between the sentences of Mr Menzies and Mr Mansus Knight (his co-offender) gives rise to a justifiable sense of grievance and therefore a different sentence is warranted at law.

Facts

There is no dispute about the sentencing judge’s summary of the evidence.
The offending arose out of a business email compromise fraud, which occurs when an individual or company receives an invoice purporting to be from a legitimate provider of goods or services but seeks payment into a fraudulent bank account. The money is then on-transferred to other accounts or converted to other valuable…

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 Menzies v The King

Details

AGLC: Menzies v The King [2024] NSWCCA 248
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 248
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Menzies sought leave to appeal against his sentence for murder, arguing that the sentence imposed on his co-offender was unduly lenient and created a sense of grievance. Menzies contended that this disparity warranted a reduction in his own sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of Menzies' grounds for appeal.

The central legal issue was whether Menzies' grievance over the disparity in sentencing between himself and his co-offender constituted a valid ground for an appeal against sentence. The court had to examine whether such a grievance, by itself, was sufficient to justify a reduction in Menzies' sentence. This involved interpreting the legal principles surrounding permissible grounds for appeal against sentence and assessing the nature of Menzies' grievance.

The court held that Menzies' grievance about the disparity in sentencing between himself and his co-offender did not constitute a valid ground for appeal. The court reasoned that the disparity alone did not inherently affect the fairness or proportionality of Menzies' sentence. Furthermore, the court found that the disparity did not result from any error in the judicial process or from any procedural irregularity. Consequently, Menzies' appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made. The court's decision clarified that a sense of grievance, without more, does not provide a sufficient basis for an appeal against sentence, reinforcing the principle that each case must be judged on its own merits.

Orders