R v Menzies - [2020] VSC 169

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0246

THE QUEEN

TRACY MENZIES

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 April 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 April 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Menzies
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 169

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Assist offender following murder – Deceased shot in head by co-offender Cross in presence of offender – Offender suggested burning the body to make killing look like suicide – Drove eye witness to train station to leave Geelong – Travelled interstate with Cross and co-offender Sell – Prior criminal history – On CCO at time of offence - Late guilty plea – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Parity – Implications of COVID-19 pandemic – Just punishment – Denunciation – Deterrence – Rehabilitation – Sentence of 2 years 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year 2 months – But for plea of guilty, sentence of 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Pickering	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Terry	Matthew White & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Tracy Anne Menzies, you have pleaded guilty to assisting an offender following a murder, and have admitted prior convictions contained in a criminal record filed against you.

The maximum penalty for the crime to which you have pleaded guilty is imprisonment for 20 years.

Facts

The essence of the crime to which you have pleaded guilty was assistance you provided to your friend Nicholas Cross (‘Cross’) after he murdered a young woman named Maddison Pante in your presence in a ‘glamping’ tent erected at the Geelong Showgrounds on the morning of 3 December 2018.

Ms Pante was 29 years old at the time of her death. Sadly, in the lead-up to her death, she had apparently become involved in the use of drugs. Her parents had been endeavouring to provide assistance and support to her, but she was not accepting of this support. On 30 November 2018, Ms Pante left her parents’ home and later contacted a friend Brodi Costello (‘Costello’) to arrange a place to stay. Ms Pante and Costello had been involved in an intimate relationship for some weeks, and had been using drugs together during that period. Cross regularly sold drugs to Costello, and through Costello, Ms Pante also knew Cross. You were a friend of Cross, having known him for some months. You deny being involved in a relationship with him beyond friendship.

From 30 November to 2 December 2018, Ms Pante and Costello stayed together at the Kardinia Motel in Geelong. On checking out of the motel, they went to stay in a ‘glamping’ tent provided by a friend of Costello named Eli Cashion (‘Cashion’) and erected by Cashion and Costello at the Geelong Showgrounds. The tent was five metres square and contained a queen size mattress,…

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 [2020] VSC 169
Case: [2020] VSC 169
Decision Date: 9 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Menzies involved the appellant, Menzies, who was charged with assisting the offender Cross in the aftermath of a murder in Geelong. Menzies was present when Cross shot the deceased in the head and suggested burning the body to make the killing appear as a suicide. Menzies also drove an eyewitness to a train station to leave Geelong and travelled interstate with Cross and another co-offender, Sell. Menzies had a prior criminal history and was on a Community Corrections Order at the time of the offence. Menzies entered a late guilty plea, and the court had to consider the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, the prospects of rehabilitation, and the principles of parity, denunciation, and deterrence in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for Menzies, considering his role in assisting the offender following the murder, his prior criminal history, the late guilty plea, and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court had to weigh the principles of punishment, including just punishment, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also had to consider the principle of parity, ensuring that Menzies' sentence was consistent with sentences imposed on others in similar circumstances.

The court found that Menzies' conduct was of a high degree of culpability, and his prior criminal history warranted a significant sentence. However, the court also recognised Menzies' late guilty plea and his reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. Considering the principles of just punishment, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court determined that a sentence of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months was appropriate. The court noted that but for Menzies' late guilty plea, the sentence would have been 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.

The court ordered that Menzies be sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months. The court also noted that had Menzies not entered a late guilty plea, the sentence would have been 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years. The court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sentencing process and the importance of ensuring public safety while also promoting rehabilitation.

Orders