Application by Raouf Maurice Philopos pursuant to s.78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 271

Application by Raouf Maurice Philopos pursuant to s.78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 271

No doubt or question as to any mitigating circumstance has been demonstrated; the approach of the sentencing Judge and Court of Criminal Appeal did not disclose Muldrock error or accord determinative significance to the standard non-parole period.

Parties
Applicant: Raouf Maurice Philopos; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / Decision on the Papers
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Mitigating Circumstances, Muldrock Error, Standard Non Parole Period, Sentencing Procedure
Criminal Law Mitigating Circumstances Muldrock Error Standard Non Parole Period Sentencing Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raouf Maurice Philopos

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / Decision on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether doubt or question as to mitigating circumstance exists under s.78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
  2. 2 Whether sentencing involved Muldrock error

Ratio Decidendi

No doubt or question as to any mitigating circumstance has been demonstrated; the approach of the sentencing Judge and Court of Criminal Appeal did not disclose Muldrock error or accord determinative significance to the standard non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

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