McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 80

McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 80

By majority, the Court held that the sentencing judge did not make a Muldrock error. Although Price J referred to R v AJP and R v Simon, his Honour assessed objective seriousness, considered the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period as guideposts, and then considered the applicant's subjective circumstances and other sentencing factors. The Court did not discern the alleged two-stage approach or any other error in the sole proposed ground of appeal. Because the proposed appeal lacked merit, the application for an extension of time was refused despite the Crown's concession.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application Filed Almost Six Years After Sentencing
Outcome
Application for an extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'guilty Plea']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['murder' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'guilty Plea']

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

Criminal Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application Filed Almost Six Years After Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to give notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge applied the erroneous approach to standard non-parole periods associated with R v Way as identified in Muldrock v The Queen.' 'Whether the proposed sentence appeal had sufficient merit to warrant an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the sentencing judge did not make a Muldrock error. Although Price J referred to R v AJP and R v Simon, his Honour assessed objective seriousness, considered the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period as guideposts, and then considered the applicant's subjective circumstances and other sentencing factors. The Court did not discern the alleged two-stage approach or any other error in the sole proposed ground of appeal. Because the proposed appeal lacked merit, the application for an extension of time was refused despite the Crown's concession.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse application for an extension of time in which to give notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence.']