Application by Hoai Vinh Tran pursuant to s. 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 394
No Muldrock-type error was made by the Court of Criminal Appeal in re-sentencing the applicant; the Court applied the correct principles and did not give the standard non-parole period determinative significance.
- Parties
- Applicant: Hoai Vinh Tran; Respondent: Attorney-General for NSW
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 April 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under S. 78 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / Decision on the Papers
- Outcome
- Application refused
- Legal Topics
- Mitigating Circumstances, Sentencing Error, Standard Non Parole Period, Muldrock Error
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hoai Vinh Tran
Applicant
Attorney-General for NSW
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under S. 78 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / Decision on the Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal was infected by Muldrock error
- 2 Whether there is a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance justifying an inquiry
Ratio Decidendi
No Muldrock-type error was made by the Court of Criminal Appeal in re-sentencing the applicant; the Court applied the correct principles and did not give the standard non-parole period determinative significance.
Court Disposition
Application refused
Orders
- The application is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment