Application under Part 7 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 by Anthony Bernard Stevens [2012] NSWSC 425

Application under Part 7 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 by Anthony Bernard Stevens [2012] NSWSC 425

The sentencing of Mr Pavan does not raise a manifest discrepancy or a justifiable sense of grievance when compared to the applicant’s sentence; no question as to a mitigating circumstance arises; application refused.

Parties
Applicant: Anthony Bernard Stevens; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Under Part 7 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / Decision on Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Parity Principle, Appeal and Review of Sentence, Mitigating Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Parity Principle Appeal and Review of Sentence Mitigating Circumstances

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Bernard Stevens

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Under Part 7 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on applicant lacked parity with sentence imposed on co-offender (Mr Pavan)
  2. 2 Whether a question as to a mitigating circumstance within the meaning of s 79(2) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 arises

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing of Mr Pavan does not raise a manifest discrepancy or a justifiable sense of grievance when compared to the applicant’s sentence; no question as to a mitigating circumstance arises; application refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application under Part 7 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 by Anthony Bernard Stevens is refused.