Legal Research
Cases
R v Dev Menon

R v Dev Menon

Case [2023] NSWSC 768 4 July 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dev Menon [2023] NSWSC 768
Hearing dates: 29 June 2023, 4 July 2023
Date of orders: 4 July 2023
Decision date: 04 July 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1)   Mr Menon is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 6 months to commence on 2 May 2023 and expire on 1 November 2031 for the tax fraud conspiracy;
(2)    Mr Menon is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years to commence on 2 May 2025 and expire on 1 May 2037 for the money laundering conspiracy;
(3) Under s 19AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) a single non-parole period of 9 years commencing on 2 May 2023 is fixed;
(4)    The offender is first eligible for parole on 1 May 2032.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – federal offenders – conspiracy to cause loss to the Commonwealth – money laundering conspiracy – significant loss to the Commonwealth – persistent course of conduct

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1, Criminal Code

Cases Cited:
AE v R [2023] NSWCCA 74
Alpha v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 292
Arenilla-Cepeda v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 267
Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
Croke v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 249
Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 286
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Pratten (No 2) (2017) 94 NSWLR 194; [2017] NSWCCA 42
DPP (Cth) v Estrada (2015) 45 VR 286; [2015] VSCA 22
DPP (Cth) v Goldberg [2001] VSCA 107 (2001) 184 ALR 387
Elomar v The Queen (2014) 316 ALR 206; [2014] NSWCCA 303
Elshani v R [2015] NSWCCA 254; (2015) 255 A Crim R 488
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25
Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216
Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Issakidis v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 302
Kao v R [2020] NSWCCA 38
Leach v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 1; [2007] HCA 3
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Pearce v R (1988) 194 CLR 610
R v Agius [2012] NSWSC 978; (2012) 87 ATR 528
R v Anquetil [2020] NSWSC 995
R v Brown (1986) 43 SASR 33
R v Chalabian (No 14) [2022] NSWSC 829
R v Cranston (No 9) [2021] NSWSC 1413
R v Cranston (No 28) [2023] NSWSC 199
R v Doff [2005] NSWCCA 119
R v El Rashid (NSWCCA, unreported, 7 April 1995)
R v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1; [2011] VSCA 145
R v Hammond [2020] NSWSC 888
R v Hausman; Hausman v R; R v Rostankovski; Rostankovski v R [2022] NSWCCA 24
R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
R v Huang; R v Siu [2007]…

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 R v Dev Menon

Details

AGLC: R v Dev Menon [2023] NSWSC 768
Case: [2023] NSWSC 768
Decision Date: 04 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Dev Menon, the appellant was convicted for his involvement in a conspiracy to cause a significant loss to the Commonwealth through money laundering activities. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Menon was found to have engaged in a persistent course of conduct involving the laundering of substantial funds, which resulted in considerable financial loss to the Commonwealth. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had adequately considered the totality of Menon's criminal conduct when determining his sentence.

The court was required to decide whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to consider the aggregate impact of Menon's criminal activities. This included whether the trial judge had correctly identified and accounted for the cumulative effect of the multiple offences in arriving at an appropriate sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the totality of the offending, which included the persistent nature of the conduct and the substantial loss caused to the Commonwealth.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in relation to federal offenders, particularly those who have engaged in a significant course of criminal conduct. The High Court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the totality of Menon's criminal conduct, including the persistent nature of his activities and the substantial loss caused to the Commonwealth. The court held that the trial judge's failure to appropriately consider these factors constituted a significant error in the sentencing process. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and remitted the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

In conclusion, the court ordered that Menon be resentenced by the trial court, taking into account the totality of his criminal conduct, the persistent nature of his activities, and the significant loss to the Commonwealth. The court emphasised the importance of considering these factors in the sentencing of federal offenders to ensure a just outcome that reflects the full extent of the offending.

Orders