Application of Doyle under s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2019] NSWSC 1029

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Application of Doyle under s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2019] NSWSC 1029 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 13 August 2019 Decision date: 13 August 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Wright J Decision: Application refused. Catchwords: CRIME — Appeal and review — Application under s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 seeking an inquiry into a conviction and sentence – application based on a misunderstanding and did not seek an inquiry into a conviction and sentence – alternatively, matter already dealt with in proceedings on appeal and by a review under previous review provisions as well as having been the subject of appeal proceedings where the appeal or application was withdrawn or allowed to lapse – no special facts or circumstances justifying taking further action – application refused Legislation Cited: Australia Act 1986 (Cth) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Cases Cited: Application of Armand-Iskak pursuant to s 78 Crime (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2018] NSWSC 928 Application of Doyle [2002] NSWSC 1022 Application of Peter James Holland under s.78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2008] NSWSC 251 Armand-Iskak v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2019] NSWCA 145 ED v The Queen [2004] HCATrans 396 Application by Matthew Soames pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2017] NSWSC 423 R v Doyle [2001] NSWCCA 252 R v Doyle [2000] NSWSC 512 R v ED [2003] NSWCCA 255 R v Gregory [2002] NSWCCA 199 Sinkovich v Attorney General of New South Wales (2013) 85 NSWLR 783; [2013] NSWCA 383 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Edward Emmett Doyle (Applicant) Attorney General for New South Wales (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Self-represented (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/212193