Application by Adam Carlton pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2013] NSWSC 1705

Application by Adam Carlton pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2013] NSWSC 1705

Because the sentencing remarks treated the standard non-parole period as the starting point and gave it central significance, there was sufficient material to raise a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance, namely possible Muldrock error. That was enough for the administrative application under s 78 to be granted and for the applicant's case to be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Pursuant to S 78(1) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / On the Papers
Outcome
Application granted. The applicant's case is referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
Legal Topics
['application for Inquiry Into Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent Involving Person Under Age of 16 Years' 'mitigating Circumstance']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals and Review'] ['application for Inquiry Into Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent Involving Person Under Age of 16 Years' 'mitigating Circumstance']

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

Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Pursuant to S 78(1) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / On the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there is a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance in the applicant's case arising from alleged undue weight being given to the standard non-parole period contrary to Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120." "Whether the applicant's sentence should be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the sentencing remarks treated the standard non-parole period as the starting point and gave it central significance, there was sufficient material to raise a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance, namely possible Muldrock error. That was enough for the administrative application under s 78 to be granted and for the applicant's case to be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The applicant's case is referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Orders

  • ['The application is granted.' "The applicant's case is referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912."]