Milat, Ivan Robert Marko - Application under Section 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2015] NSWSC 209

Milat, Ivan Robert Marko - Application under Section 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2015] NSWSC 209

The application was refused at the s.79(3) threshold because the matters raised by the Applicant had previously been dealt with in earlier applications for review of his convictions, particularly his complaints that the Crown had to prove whether he acted alone or as part of a joint criminal enterprise and that the trial judge's directions were erroneous, and the Court was not satisfied that any special facts or special circumstances justified further action.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.78(1) Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 for an Inquiry Into Convictions / On Written Submissions; Threshold Consideration Under S.79(3) Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001
Outcome
Application under s.78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 refused.
Legal Topics
['post Conviction Inquiry Into Convictions' 'repeated Applications for Review' 'special Facts or Special Circumstances' 'jury Directions' 'murder' 'detaining for Advantage']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['post Conviction Inquiry Into Convictions' 'repeated Applications for Review' 'special Facts or Special Circumstances' 'jury Directions' 'murder' 'detaining for Advantage']

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.78(1) Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 for an Inquiry Into Convictions / On Written Submissions; Threshold Consideration Under S.79(3) Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court should refuse to consider or otherwise deal with the application under s.79(3) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 because the matters had previously been dealt with and no special facts or special circumstances justified further action.' "Whether the Applicant's complaints about alleged trial judge misdirections and the Court of Criminal Appeal's treatment of the Crown case raised a doubt or question as to his guilt."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused at the s.79(3) threshold because the matters raised by the Applicant had previously been dealt with in earlier applications for review of his convictions, particularly his complaints that the Crown had to prove whether he acted alone or as part of a joint criminal enterprise and that the trial judge's directions were erroneous, and the Court was not satisfied that any special facts or special circumstances justified further action.

Court Disposition

Application under s.78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 refused.

Orders

  • ['The Court refused to consider or otherwise deal with the application for review in accordance with s.79(3) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.']