Application by Christopher John Laycock under s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2015] NSWSC 1429

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Application by Christopher John Laycock under s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2015] NSWSC 1429 Hearing dates: On Written Submissions Date of orders: 29 September 2015 Decision date: 29 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Hall J Decision: Application made pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 is dismissed Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal and review – Application for inquiry into sentence under s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act – Applicant pleaded guilty to five counts relating to offences committed while he was a police officer – Applicant claimed sentencing judge had proceeded on an incorrect factual basis – Statement of "agreed facts" tendered on sentence was said to have contained errors and was not agreed to by the applicant – Applicant contended that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive as a result – Applicant contended disparity between his sentence and sentence of co-offender – Applicant contended sentencing judge had failed to take into account extra curial punishment he had suffered through the loss of his family home – Applicant's grounds on the application had already been considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal and dismissed – Applicant had not sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia – Whether basis for inquiry into sentence under the Act – Whether basis for referral of matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal – No error established on part of sentencing judge – No error established by Court of Criminal Appeal – No facts or circumstances existing sufficient to cause sense of disquiet or unease with respect to sentence – Application dismissed – No grounds established for a direction or referral under s 79(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Cases Cited: Allan – Application for Inquiry into Conviction and Sentence pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2012] NSWSC 1596 Application by Alarn Scott McCormick pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2015] NSWSC 708 Application by Ivan Robert Marko Milat pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2014] NSWSC 434 Application by Roseanne Beckett pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 1773 Application of FD [2015] NSWSC 285 Application of Peter James Holland under s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2008] NSWSC 251 Application of Victor Makarov Pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2013] NSWSC 1468 CL v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 196 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) [2003] 214 CLR 318 Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49 Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of NSW [2006] NSWCA 172; 66 NSWLR 151 Milat, Ivan Robert Marko – Application under Section 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2015] NSWSC 209 Skaf, Bilal – Application under Part 7 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2013] NSWSC 45 Varley v Attorney General (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 30 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christopher John Laycock (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant (in person) J Caldwell (Respondent)