Application by Ivan Robert Marko Milat pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2014] NSWSC 434

Application by Ivan Robert Marko Milat pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2014] NSWSC 434

The applicant's contention that the Crown failed to discharge its burden of proof by not establishing his precise role in the murders is erroneous; the Crown case did not require proof of whether he acted alone or as part of a joint criminal enterprise. There is no unease in allowing the conviction and sentence to stand, no deprivation of the benefit of exculpatory DNA evidence, and no special facts or circumstances justifying further inquiry. The application raises matters previously addressed and is substantially similar to earlier applications.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Conviction and Sentence / Application for Inquiry Under S 78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw); Decision
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['inquiry Into Conviction and Sentence' 'burden of Proof' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'dna Evidence' 'special Circumstances for Review']
['criminal Law'] ['inquiry Into Conviction and Sentence' 'burden of Proof' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'dna Evidence' 'special Circumstances for Review']

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 Inquiry Into Conviction and Sentence / Application for Inquiry Under S 78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw); Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown was required to prove the applicant's precise role in the murders, including whether he acted alone or as part of a joint criminal enterprise" 'Whether the applicant was deprived of the benefit of exculpatory DNA evidence' 'Whether there are special facts or circumstances justifying an inquiry into conviction or sentence']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's contention that the Crown failed to discharge its burden of proof by not establishing his precise role in the murders is erroneous; the Crown case did not require proof of whether he acted alone or as part of a joint criminal enterprise. There is no unease in allowing the conviction and sentence to stand, no deprivation of the benefit of exculpatory DNA evidence, and no special facts or circumstances justifying further inquiry. The application raises matters previously addressed and is substantially similar to earlier applications.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Application for inquiry pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 dismissed']