A decision-maker considering an application under s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) commits jurisdictional error by failing to address a substantial argument advanced by the applicant. The precondition in s 79(2) — that there appear to be a doubt or question — turns on the decision-maker's subjective satisfaction, not on the objective existence of such a doubt or question. Muldrock error may be inferred from the mathematics of a sentence where the notional starting point (before discount) closely corresponds to the standard non-parole period adjusted for the assessed level of objective seriousness, following the approach in Bolt v R.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 52 later cases that cite this judgment.
12 of the 52 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.