Application by Paul Rajendran pursuant to s.78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 270
It is open to conclude that the sentencing Judge engaged in an impermissible two-stage process in setting the standard non-parole period, thereby raising a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance sufficient to refer the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul Rajendran; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Inquiry Into Sentence / Decision on Referral Application Under S.78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001
- Outcome
- Application granted
- Legal Topics
- Inquiry Into Sentence, Mitigating Circumstances, Muldrock Error, Standard Non Parole Period
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Paul Rajendran
Applicant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Sentence / Decision on Referral Application Under S.78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance arising from the application of a two-stage process to setting the standard non-parole period (Muldrock error) in the Applicant's sentence
Ratio Decidendi
It is open to conclude that the sentencing Judge engaged in an impermissible two-stage process in setting the standard non-parole period, thereby raising a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance sufficient to refer the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Court Disposition
Application granted
Orders
- The matter is referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment