Application by AZ pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 256

Application by AZ pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 256

The application was refused because the Court was not persuaded that Muldrock error occurred. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not engage in an impermissible two-stage process and did not give the standard non-parole periods primary or determinative significance; it treated them as benchmarks or guideposts while assessing objective seriousness and all relevant sentencing factors in accordance with Markarian. Accordingly, there was no doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance in the applicant's case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Pursuant to S78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / On the Papers; Application Seeking Referral of Sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['s78 Inquiry Into Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'objective Seriousness' 'large Commercial Quantity Drug Supply' 'prohibited Firearm']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals and Review'] ['s78 Inquiry Into Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'objective Seriousness' 'large Commercial Quantity Drug Supply' 'prohibited Firearm']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Pursuant to S78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / On the Papers; Application Seeking Referral of Sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance in the applicant's case." 'Whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal was infected by Muldrock error by giving undue emphasis to the standard non-parole period.' 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal gave the standard non-parole periods primary or determinative significance when re-sentencing the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Court was not persuaded that Muldrock error occurred. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not engage in an impermissible two-stage process and did not give the standard non-parole periods primary or determinative significance; it treated them as benchmarks or guideposts while assessing objective seriousness and all relevant sentencing factors in accordance with Markarian. Accordingly, there was no doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance in the applicant's case.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']