Ivory v R [2014] NSWCCA 181

Ivory v R [2014] NSWCCA 181

The application for an extension of time was refused because the delay was not adequately explained, and neither alleged disparity between sentences nor the Crown's exercise of prosecutorial discretion warranted intervention; relevant principles preclude Court review of prosecutorial discretion post-conviction without proof of abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['application for Extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'parity Principle' 'prosecutorial Discretion' 'sentencing' 'disparity Between Co Offenders']

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

Criminal Application / Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 ['Whether the delay in bringing an application for leave to appeal against sentence was adequately explained' "Whether unjustifiable disparity between the applicant's sentence and sentences imposed on co-offenders warrants intervention" 'Whether the Court can review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in charging offences for parity purposes']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because the delay was not adequately explained, and neither alleged disparity between sentences nor the Crown's exercise of prosecutorial discretion warranted intervention; relevant principles preclude Court review of prosecutorial discretion post-conviction without proof of abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time is refused.']