R v Evans [2014] NSWSC 735

R v Evans [2014] NSWSC 735

The application was dismissed because the judge found there was no meaningful difference between concurrently and consecutively conducted hearings, provided that Ms Evans is only sentenced on evidence properly admissible against her. The process for concurrent sentencing does not undermine her rights, and joint hearings are preferable to ensure procedural fairness and efficient administration of justice.

Parties
Applicant: Wendy Evans; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Sentencing Application / Interlocutory Application Prior to Sentencing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Murder, Concurrent Proceedings, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Sentencing Murder Concurrent Proceedings Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wendy Evans

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sentencing Application / Interlocutory Application Prior to Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether separate sentencing hearings should be held due to differences in evidence
  2. 2 Whether it is in the interests of justice for sentencing hearings to be heard concurrently
  3. 3 Admissibility of evidence from co-offenders' trials in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the judge found there was no meaningful difference between concurrently and consecutively conducted hearings, provided that Ms Evans is only sentenced on evidence properly admissible against her. The process for concurrent sentencing does not undermine her rights, and joint hearings are preferable to ensure procedural fairness and efficient administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed