Menouhos v R [2019] NSWCCA 220

Menouhos v R [2019] NSWCCA 220

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentence was within the applicable range and not manifestly excessive. The disparity with co-offenders was adequately explained by substantial differences, including that the applicant was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, had committed the offences while on bail, had very limited prospects of rehabilitation, and showed no remorse or contrition. The sentencing Judge's adjustment of the non-parole period and backdating of the sentence for totality were within the discretionary range and disclosed no error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Leave to Extend Time Within Which to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances' 'totality' 'co Offender Disparity' 'aggregate Sentence' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances' 'totality' 'co Offender Disparity' 'aggregate Sentence' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Leave to Extend Time Within Which to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence of 10 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing Judge erred in relation to special circumstances, the parole/non-parole ratio, backdating, and totality.' "Whether the applicant's sentence was unjustifiably more severe than the sentences imposed on co-offenders."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentence was within the applicable range and not manifestly excessive. The disparity with co-offenders was adequately explained by substantial differences, including that the applicant was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, had committed the offences while on bail, had very limited prospects of rehabilitation, and showed no remorse or contrition. The sentencing Judge's adjustment of the non-parole period and backdating of the sentence for totality were within the discretionary range and disclosed no error.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']