Application by Paul Scott Howes pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 418

Application by Paul Scott Howes pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 418

The evidence relating to the applicant's ASD diagnosis was not sufficient to create a doubt or question as to the applicant's guilt or constitute mitigating circumstances, because it was available to the applicant's solicitor before the District Court appeal and was not used. The applicant had and abandoned...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Paul Howes; Respondent: Attorney General of NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Conviction/sentence Under S 78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Judgment on Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Inquiry Into Conviction and Sentence, Autism Spectrum Disorder as Evidence, Mitigating Circumstances, Appeal Process
Criminal Law Inquiry Into Conviction and Sentence Autism Spectrum Disorder as Evidence Mitigating Circumstances Appeal Process

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Howes

Applicant

Attorney General of NSW

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Inquiry Into Conviction/sentence Under S 78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder raises a 'doubt or question' as to the applicant's guilt under s 79(2) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether ASD diagnosis constitutes 'mitigating circumstances' to justify inquiry/referral
  3. 3 Whether evidence was available on appeal to District Court

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence relating to the applicant's ASD diagnosis was not sufficient to create a doubt or question as to the applicant's guilt or constitute mitigating circumstances, because it was available to the applicant's solicitor before the District Court appeal and was not used. The applicant had and abandoned opportunities to adduce this evidence in the District Court, and withdrew the appeal against sentence, expressly conceding its appropriateness. Consequently, the application was dismissed and no inquiry or referral ordered.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • No order for inquiry into conviction or sentence
  • No referral to Court of Criminal Appeal