Vlach v R [2012] NSWCCA 192

Vlach v R [2012] NSWCCA 192

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds of appeal were found not to have sufficient merit, there was no marked parity in treatment between applicant and co-offender that would warrant intervention, the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application.

Parties
Applicant: George Vlach; Respondent: Crown; Respondent's Solicitor: Solicitor of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Aggravated Break Enter and Steal, Extension of Time to Appeal, Parity of Sentence, Manifestly Excessive Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Aggravated Break Enter and Steal Extension of Time to Appeal Parity of Sentence Manifestly Excessive Sentence

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Vlach

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Solicitor of Public Prosecutions

Respondent's Solicitor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence should be granted
  2. 2 Whether there was a marked disparity in sentence with co-offender justifying appellate intervention (parity principle)
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds of appeal were found not to have sufficient merit, there was no marked parity in treatment between applicant and co-offender that would warrant intervention, the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time in which to appeal is refused.