Application by Frank Sinkovich pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2013] NSWSC 1342

A change in sentencing practice based on subsequent legal developments such as Muldrock v The Queen does not constitute a mitigating circumstance under s 79 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001; Part 7 displaces the principle of finality only with respect to errors of fact, not law.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 17 September 2013
Procedural Posture: Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Under S 78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / Supreme Court Decision on Application
Outcome: Application refused
Legal Topics: ['sentencing' 'mitigating Circumstances' 'finality' 'extension of Time' 'merger Doctrine']

['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'mitigating Circumstances' 'finality' 'extension of Time' 'merger Doctrine']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Under S 78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / Supreme Court Decision on Application

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether a change in sentencing practice brought about by High Court decision in Muldrock v The Queen constitutes a 'mitigating circumstance' under s 79 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001" "Scope of 'mitigating circumstances' under s 79" 'Application of principle of finality to sentencing inquiry']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

['Application for inquiry into sentence under s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 refused']