Weatherall v R [2013] NSWCCA 282

Weatherall v R [2013] NSWCCA 282

No 'Muldrock error' was established in the sentencing judge's approach; any error would have been of process only and not material, with no lesser sentence warranted in law. The accumulation of sentences was within the discretion of the sentencing judge, adequately reflecting the total criminality involved. The delay was not sufficiently explained, and finality principles weighed against granting an extension of time. The application for extension of time had no prospects of success and was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Application
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse in Company' 'extension of Time' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'finality' 'muldrock Error']
['criminal Law'] ['sentence Appeal' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse in Company' 'extension of Time' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'finality' 'muldrock Error']

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 Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the principles in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 entitled the applicant to an extension of time to appeal against sentence' "Whether the sentencing judge committed 'Muldrock error' in applying the standard non-parole period" 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive' 'Whether a lesser sentence was warranted in law under s6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

No 'Muldrock error' was established in the sentencing judge's approach; any error would have been of process only and not material, with no lesser sentence warranted in law. The accumulation of sentences was within the discretion of the sentencing judge, adequately reflecting the total criminality involved. The delay was not sufficiently explained, and finality principles weighed against granting an extension of time. The application for extension of time had no prospects of success and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application for extension of time dismissed']