MILAT [2006] NSWSC 1391

MILAT [2006] NSWSC 1391

The application was refused because the grounds advanced had already been considered by Barr J and had also been the subject of prior appellate consideration, and the material submitted did not provide any basis for concluding that there was a doubt or question as to the applicant's guilt or any circumstance supporting referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 474 D of the Crimes Act for an Inquiry Into Convictions and Referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal / Second Application, Determined on Written Submissions
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['post Conviction Review' 'application Under S 474 D Crimes Act' 'referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'doubt or Question as to Guilt']
['criminal Law'] ['post Conviction Review' 'application Under S 474 D Crimes Act' 'referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'doubt or Question as to Guilt']

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 Under S 474 D of the Crimes Act for an Inquiry Into Convictions and Referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal / Second Application, Determined on Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's grounds raised a doubt or question as to his guilt or otherwise supported referral of the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal." 'Whether the matters raised had already been determined at trial, on appeal, in the High Court special leave application, or in the previous s 474D application.' 'Whether the trial judge directed the jury to act on evidence not established by the Crown or split the prosecution case.' "Whether the trial judge's summing up concerning the evidence of Mr Paul Onions and the vehicle misled the jury or introduced evidence not established at trial."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the grounds advanced had already been considered by Barr J and had also been the subject of prior appellate consideration, and the material submitted did not provide any basis for concluding that there was a doubt or question as to the applicant's guilt or any circumstance supporting referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Application under s 474D Crimes Act 1900 is refused']