Application by Jens Grandt Mosegaard pursuant to s 78(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 1661

Application by Jens Grandt Mosegaard pursuant to s 78(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 1661

None of the applicant’s claims, including assertions of physical impossibility of the offences, alleged police corruption, evidentiary contamination, or misconduct by legal counsel or judiciary, raised any doubt or question as to guilt, mitigating circumstances, or evidence so as to justify an inquiry into conviction. All matters were or could have been raised at trial or appeal and did not disclose any new or special circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Jens Grandt Mosegaard; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 S 78(1) / Supreme Court Determination of Application for Inquiry Into Conviction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Appeal and Review Procedures, Inquiry Into Conviction, Police Misconduct Allegations, Judicial Conduct, Legal Representation
Criminal Law Sexual Assault Appeal and Review Procedures Inquiry Into Conviction Police Misconduct Allegations Judicial Conduct Legal Representation

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jens Grandt Mosegaard

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 S 78(1) / Supreme Court Determination of Application for Inquiry Into Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is doubt or question as to the applicant's guilt, mitigating circumstances, or any part of the evidence justifying an inquiry under s 78(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
  2. 2 Whether allegations of police corruption, destruction or contamination of evidence, or incompetence/corruption of legal counsel or judicial officer, raise a reasonable basis for further inquiry into conviction

Ratio Decidendi

None of the applicant’s claims, including assertions of physical impossibility of the offences, alleged police corruption, evidentiary contamination, or misconduct by legal counsel or judiciary, raised any doubt or question as to guilt, mitigating circumstances, or evidence so as to justify an inquiry into conviction. All matters were or could have been raised at trial or appeal and did not disclose any new or special circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application of Jens Grandt Mosegaard made pursuant to s 78(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 for an inquiry into his convictions for sexual assault is dismissed.