Application by RHB pursuant to s. 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 504

Application by RHB pursuant to s. 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 504

Although Hall J sentenced according to Way, which was later held to be erroneous by the High Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal used the standard non-parole period as a guide and had regard to all relevant factors, thus no doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance exists warranting referral.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under S. 78 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / Final Determination on Papers
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'application Under S. 78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'application Under S. 78 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance exists warranting inquiry under s. 78' 'Whether sentence imposed infected by Muldrock error']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Hall J sentenced according to Way, which was later held to be erroneous by the High Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal used the standard non-parole period as a guide and had regard to all relevant factors, thus no doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance exists warranting referral.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']