R v Menzies - [2012] NSWSC 158

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Menzies [2012] NSWSC 158
Hearing dates: 10 February 2012
Decision date: 02 March 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Affray: Sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for 3 years commencing 27 March 2009 and expiring 26 March 2012.
Manslaughter: Sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years 8 months and a balance of the term of the sentence of 3 years 6 months. The sentence is to date from 27 September 2009. The offender will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 26 May 2013. The total term will expire on 26 November 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter and affray - melee between rival motorcycle club members at airport - deterrence and denunciation - conviction after trial for affray - subsequent plea of guilty to manslaughter - favourable subjective case - special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: R v Eken; R v Potrus [2012] NSWSC
R v Kisacanin [2012] NSWSC 2
R v Pirini [2011] NSWSC 1395
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Christian Menzies
Representation: Counsel:
Ms H Roberts (Crown)
Mr J Stratton SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Hunter Flood Lawyers

File Number(s): 2009/151392
Publication restriction: Non-publication of anything that would identify witnesses known as SP and AL

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The offender, Christian Menzies, was found by a jury to be guilty of affray. This is an offence contrary to s 93C of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years. In relation to a separate incident, the offender was found not guilty of murder but the jury were unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in respect of manslaughter. The offender subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter. That is an offence against ss 18 & 24 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years.

The trial commenced with the empanelment of the jury on 24 May 2011 with seven accused. The jury retired on 29 September 2011 and returned its verdicts on 2 November 2011. It was on 2 December 2011 that the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

On 10 February 2012 I heard and received evidence and submissions on sentence before standing the matter over until today.

Facts

The matter concerns events at the Qantas domestic terminal at Sydney airport on 22 March 2009 where there was violent conflict between members and associates of rival outlaw motorcycle gangs, the Hells Angels and the Comancheros. At the time of the offences the offender was a member of the Comancheros. For convenience, whether they were members, nominee members or associates of members, hereafter I will simply refer to people as being a member of one or the other gang.

The initial confrontation between the two groups giving rise to the charge of affray occurred at Gate 5 of the terminal. There was violence and threatened violence which constituted…

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 Menzies

Details

AGLC: R v Menzies [2012] NSWSC 158
Case: [2012] NSWSC 158
Decision Date: 02 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Menzies involved two parties, the respondent, Menzies, and the Crown. Menzies was charged and subsequently convicted of affray following a large-scale altercation between rival motorcycle clubs at an airport. After a trial, Menzies was found guilty of affray but later pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation to the same incident. The legal issues before the court were whether Menzies' sentence should be altered due to his guilty plea for manslaughter and whether any special circumstances existed that warranted a reduced sentence. The court had to balance the principles of deterrence and denunciation with the mitigating factors present in Menzies' case.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for both the initial offence of affray and the subsequent plea of guilty to manslaughter. It considered whether Menzies' change of plea to manslaughter constituted a favourable subjective case, and if so, whether this warranted a reduction in his sentence. The court also evaluated whether there were any special circumstances that could mitigate Menzies' sentence, such as his early guilty plea or the chaotic nature of the incident itself. The court balanced the need to deter future violent conduct with the recognition of Menzies' early guilty plea and the chaotic circumstances of the incident.

In reaching its decision, the court found that Menzies' change of plea to manslaughter did indeed constitute a favourable subjective case. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors present, including Menzies' early guilty plea and the chaotic nature of the incident. However, the court also emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in sentencing for violent crimes. Ultimately, the court decided that while Menzies' plea warranted some consideration, the need for deterrence and denunciation in relation to such a serious incident necessitated a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence. The court adjusted Menzies' sentence to reflect the mitigating factors but maintained a substantial penalty to uphold the principles of deterrence and denunciation.

The final orders of the court were that Menzies' sentence be reduced to reflect his early guilty plea and the special circumstances of the case, but the overall penalty remained severe enough to serve as a deterrent for similar future offences. The court's decision balanced the need for justice with the mitigating factors present in Menzies' case, ensuring that the sentence was both proportionate and reflective of the serious nature of the crime.

Orders