MARINELLIS v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 307

MARINELLIS v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 307

The only error warranting intervention was the sentencing judge’s failure to give the proper utilitarian discount for the early plea, particularly given the complexity and international nature of witnesses for the frauds. However, application of s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 precluded reduction of the overall sentence for the frauds, as to do so would be inappropriately lenient. In respect of count 10 (perverting the course of justice), the non-parole period was excessive and was quashed and substituted for a shorter period to align with statutory requirements.

Parties
Applicant: Nick Marinellis; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Sentence Appeal
Outcome
1. Leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeals in respect of sentences imposed for counts 1 to 9 and 11 dismissed. 3. Appeal on count 10 allowed to the extent that the non-parole period is quashed and substituted with two years, four months and one week, commencing 31 May 2005 and ending on 6 October 2007.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Fraud, Perverting the Course of Justice
Criminal Law Sentencing Fraud Perverting the Course of Justice

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nick Marinellis

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences imposed for fraud and perverting the course of justice offences were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing the sentences, in particular by failing to recognise the utilitarian value of the plea, giving concurrent sentences for multiple victims, and adequately considering the applicant's mental health and assistance to police

Ratio Decidendi

The only error warranting intervention was the sentencing judge’s failure to give the proper utilitarian discount for the early plea, particularly given the complexity and international nature of witnesses for the frauds. However, application of s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 precluded reduction of the overall sentence for the frauds, as to do so would be inappropriately lenient. In respect of count 10 (perverting the course of justice), the non-parole period was excessive and was quashed and substituted for a shorter period to align with statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

1. Leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeals in respect of sentences imposed for counts 1 to 9 and 11 dismissed. 3. Appeal on count 10 allowed to the extent that the non-parole period is quashed and substituted with two years, four months and one week, commencing 31 May 2005 and ending on 6 October 2007.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeals in respect of sentences imposed for counts 1 to 9 and 11 dismissed