AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273

AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273

The application for extension of time was refused because the proposed grounds lacked merit. The sentencing Judge's references to the standard non-parole period as a guidepost and to some relativity with the non-parole period did not disclose Muldrock error. The Applicant also failed to demonstrate an objectively legitimate sense of grievance arising from the co-offender's sentence, given material differences including that the Applicant committed the Kanahooka offence while on bail for the Mandalong offences. In any event, no lesser sentence was warranted under s.6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal; Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application After District Court Sentences Imposed on 11 November 2009
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal Against Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'parity and Disparity Between Co Offenders' 'drug Manufacture Offences' 'form 1 Offences' 'assistance to Authorities' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['extension of Time to Appeal Against Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'parity and Disparity Between Co Offenders' 'drug Manufacture Offences' 'form 1 Offences' 'assistance to Authorities' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 Sentence Appeal; Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application After District Court Sentences Imposed on 11 November 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing Judge erred in his approach to the standard non-parole period legislation for the Kanahooka offence in light of Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120.' 'Whether there was erroneous disparity between the sentence imposed on the Applicant and the sentence imposed on co-offender XY for the Kanahooka offence.' 'Whether, even if error were demonstrated, any lesser sentence was warranted under s.6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether the very lengthy delay in seeking leave to appeal should be excused by granting an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the proposed grounds lacked merit. The sentencing Judge's references to the standard non-parole period as a guidepost and to some relativity with the non-parole period did not disclose Muldrock error. The Applicant also failed to demonstrate an objectively legitimate sense of grievance arising from the co-offender's sentence, given material differences including that the Applicant committed the Kanahooka offence while on bail for the Mandalong offences. In any event, no lesser sentence was warranted under s.6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence is refused.']