AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 20 March 2026

Maximos v R

[2026] NSWCCA 22

Fraud & dishonesty

Citation: Maximos v R [2026] NSWCCA 22
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 20 March 2026
Judge(s): Hamill J at [1]; McNaughton J at [2] (principal judgment); Emmett J at [112]

Background

The applicant was the sole director and shareholder of a company that operated a supermarket and grocery store in Sydney. In September 2018, eight unauthorised Mastercard transactions totalling $746,500 were processed through the company's merchant terminal, with the proceeds deposited into the company's bank account. The majority of those funds were withdrawn before the Commonwealth Bank identified the suspicious transactions — including approximately $347,780 in cash paid to the applicant or another individual, $100,000 transferred to an account in the applicant's name, and further sums credited to credit cards linked to the applicant. The applicant was arrested in October 2018 after presenting himself to a police station.

The applicant pleaded guilty to eight counts of recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime under s 193B(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which were statutory alternatives to the original charges of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime. On 20 December 2024, Turner DCJ in the Campbelltown District Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months.

The applicant sought leave to appeal his sentence on a single ground: that during the sentencing proceedings, material was inadvertently and incorrectly included in a bundle of documents tendered by the Crown, and that the sentencing judge took that material into account in a way that constituted a material error. The appeal turned entirely on this discrete procedural issue, rather than any broader challenge to the sentencing judge's assessment of the offending.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by taking into account material that was inadvertently and incorrectly placed before her — specifically, material included in a Crown bundle tendered at the resumed sentencing hearing on 25 October 2024 that related to facts not admitted by the applicant and in respect of which he had not been sentenced.

  • Whether any such error was material — that is, whether it had the capacity to affect the sentence imposed.

  • If the error was material, how the sentencing discretion should be re-exercised on appeal.

Decision

The Court of Criminal Appeal, in a judgment delivered by McNaughton J (with Hamill J and Emmett J agreeing), allowed the appeal.

McNaughton J found that the sentencing judge had erred by considering material that was inadvertently included in the Crown's tender bundle. This material related to facts that the applicant had not admitted and for which he had not been sentenced. The error was not one of mere technical irregularity: the Court concluded that the material had the capacity to affect the sentence actually imposed. Applying the principles from House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 and AM v R [2024] NSWCCA 26, the consideration of irrelevant material in the sentencing process constituted an error warranting appellate intervention.

Having identified the error, the Court determined that the sentencing discretion needed to be exercised afresh. In doing so, McNaughton J adopted all of the sentencing judge's factual findings with one exception — the finding tainted by the inadvertently disclosed material. The Court determined that the appropriate indicative sentences for each count should remain as originally imposed. However, the degree of notional accumulation between those indicative sentences was reduced. This reflected the removal of the impermissible consideration from the sentencing calculus, applying the structured sentencing methodology endorsed in Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601.

The result was a modest but meaningful reduction in the overall sentence. The aggregate head sentence was reduced from 2 years and 6 months to 2 years and 3 months, and the non-parole period was reduced from 1 year and 6 months to 1 year and 4 months.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed.
  • The sentence imposed on 20 December 2024 was quashed.
  • In lieu, the applicant was resentenced to an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months.

Key Takeaways

  • The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the inadvertent inclusion of irrelevant material in the Crown's tender bundle vitiated the original sentence, as the sentencing judge had taken that material into account, constituting a material error warranting appellate intervention even in the absence of deliberate impropriety.

  • Under the House v The King framework, it is not sufficient merely to show that irrelevant material was before the court; the appellant must demonstrate that the error had the capacity to affect the sentence imposed, with materiality serving as the threshold question for appellate intervention.

  • Accurate compilation of sentencing materials proved critical in this case, as the error arose from the inclusion of facts the offender had not admitted and for which he had not been sentenced, underscoring the obligations on parties tendering material in sentencing proceedings.

  • In resentencing, the Court adopted the balance of the original sentencing judge's findings and adjusted only the component affected by the identified error, rather than conducting a full resentencing exercise.

  • A reduction in the degree of notional accumulation between indicative sentences, even where those individual sentences remain undisturbed, can produce a materially different aggregate outcome, illustrating that accumulation operates as a distinct mechanism within aggregate sentencing relevant to the principle of totality.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193B
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 9, 44, 66, 71

Cases:
- AM v R [2024] NSWCCA 26
- Benn v R [2023] NSWCCA 24; 305 A Crim R 550
- Brawn v The King [2025] HCA 20
- Butler v R [2012] NSWCCA 54
- Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- Hraiki v R [2019] NSWCCA 140
- Ishaq v R [2023] NSWCCA 178
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
- McRae v R [2023] NSWCCA 55
- R v Weldon [2025] NSWCCA 21
- Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2023) 278 CLR 1; [2023] HCA 3