Cases and authorities

BAIL – Murder – Aboriginal offences – special considerations necessary – applicant not shown cause – unacceptable risk – bail refused.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Application for summary dismissal – Proceedings brought against Sheriff of NSW for trespass following execution of writ of possession – Application of Sheriff Act s 7A – No arguable causes of action in trespass to land, person or goods disclosed in statement of claim or in the proceedings – Proceedings against second defendant dismissed

Human Tissue – removal of sperm from deceased person for Invitro Fertilisation – storage of gametes – whether plaintiff entitled to possession of stored sperm for use in Invitro Fertilisation in ACT.

COSTS – Offer of compromise made under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 20.26 – Calderbank offer – Whether offerees had access to enough information to properly consider the offer – Whether the offeree had a reasonable time to consider the offer – Where offer related to two interrelated proceedings and only one was successful – Whether costs order of freezing order made by consent should be set aside EQUITY – Apportionment of trust assets following tracing – Where successful plaintiffs found to have interests in trust property in different percentages - Held appropriate for the each successful plaintiff to select assets to be transferred to each of them in specie for an amount equivalent to the respective percentage rather than each plaintiff be allocated a share of each individual asset

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – single count of murder – elements of murder established – whether partial defence of substantial impairment established – s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – where there is evidence of the accused having a complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and an intermittent explosive disorder – where the accused’s capacity to control himself in the weeks leading to the incident deteriorated – accused found guilty of manslaughter

CRIME — Serious crime prevention orders — Application – consideration of section 5(1) of the Crimes (Serious Crimes Prevent Orders) Act 2016 - defendants said to be members of the Hamze organised crime network – evidence of escalating violence with Alameddine organised crime network – each defendant previously convicted of a serious criminal offence - whether there is a real or significant risk that each defendant will be involved in serious crime related activity - whether reasonable grounds to believe order would protect the public by disrupting involvement of defendants in such activity – application of Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2019] HCA 38 - what is the appropriate content of such orders - order granted for term of 12 months

CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - guilt by association - association with member of terrorist group - first offence charged under provision - objective seriousness - factors relevant to assessment - first offender - no previous convictions - statutory constraints on sentencing discretion - whether imprisonment only appropriate sentence - unavailability of alternatives - where offender served 18 months on remand in harsh conditions - offender entitled to imminent release

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary dismissal – Where plaintiff sought to bring an action against his former lawyers – Where proceedings statute barred – Whether plaintiff under a disability for any relevant period – Whether appropriate to make an order for summary dismissal in circumstances where a limitation issue arose – Where evidence did not establish that the plaintiff was under a disability for the relevant period – Where there was objective evidence supporting the conclusion that the plaintiff was able to manage his affairs – Where causes of action clearly statute barred – Proceedings dismissed

JUDICIAL REVIEW – application to review numerous matters related to criminal prosecutions – need to identify decisions – need to identify grounds – repetition of grounds previously dismissed – abuse of process JUDICIAL REVIEW – application to review sentence imposed by district Court – operation of statutory stay – stay following grant of bail – Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 69, 69A, 69C PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – bail – pending application for special leave to appeal to the High Court – no evidence that application filed – special circumstances PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – repeat application for judicial review – reopening dismissed application – whether frivolous and vexatious – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 13.4

COSTS – partial success of appellants on appeal – determination of costs of appeal and re-exercise of discretion as to costs at trial – second appellant not originally joined to proceedings at trial – first appellant played no role in proceedings after hearing of principal appeal – successful point not raised until first day of trial – whether global order as to costs, or orders relating to particular aspects of the litigation, should be made

CONTRACTS – construction – whether mistake in written agreement can be rectified by construction – inconsistency concerning right to terminate on face of document – primacy given to handwritten amendments COSTS – appeal books – unnecessary reproduction of thousands of pages already reproduced in appeal books – whether special order as to costs warranted DEEDS – delivery – whether deed restating terms of joint venture delivered to other side in escrow – whether terms of document precluded finding of delivery in escrow – whether deed even if not delivered effective as simple contract ELECTION AND WAIVER – where one party continued to perform work and incur expenses pursuant to joint venture after a contractual right of termination had accrued – absence of any reservation of rights – significance of “no waiver” clause EQUITY – ancillary liability – liability for procuring or inducing breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty – whether requirement that third party be “dishonest” – whether separate bases of liability for procuring as opposed to inducing breach – whether director of company acting as such capable of procuring or inducing breach of trust by director's company EQUITY – rectification – whether contract should be rectified in equity if mistake incapable of being corrected by construction EQUITY – unconscionability – statutory unconscionability – joint venture to develop land for resale – offer made to one party to sell part of joint venture land at profit – offer communicated to other party with invitation to share profit – other party sought to persevere with joint venture – first party purported to terminate and sell land – finding that first party believed entitled to terminate – in fact first party not entitled to terminate – first party’s conduct not unconscionable contrary to s 21 of Australian Consumer Law

CONTRACT – oral contracts concerning debt, joint venture to exploit inventions and rural properties – primary judge rejected claims in contract – no claim advanced in equity for partnership or breach of fiduciary duty – such claim renounced by senior counsel appearing at trial – no error in primary judge declining to address such claim – no error in rejection of oral contracts – appeal dismissed RESULTING TRUST – presumed resulting trusts – cross-appellant purchased rural lands and placed in joint names of him and first cross-respondent, or in sole name of second cross-respondent – primary judge found presumption of resulting trust rebutted – whether appellable error in so finding – testimonial evidence by cross-respondents – cross-appellant gave no evidence – one cross-respondent not cross-examined on her evidence of beneficial ownership – documents supported rebuttal of presumption – cross-appeal dismissed

CRIME – appeals – application for leave to appeal against sentence – offences of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception – where applicant was aged between 23 and 26 years of age at time of offending – whether sentencing judge should have had regard to applicant’s youth and asserted immaturity – boundaries of youth and adult responsibility – whether offender acted as an “adult” – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – Case stated by a Judge of the District Court of NSW – Applicant convicted of recklessly damaging property by fire – Three questions submitted for the Court’s determination – Observations as to the purpose of the stated case procedure – Procedure does not confer a general right of appeal – Emphasis on the fact that the procedure is centred upon questions giving rise to consideration of matters of principle which are of general application – Lack of clarity in question posed – Attempt to challenge the ultimate determination which was made in the Court below – Appropriate case in which to invoke the discretion of the Court to decline to answer the questions asked

EVIDENCE – hearsay – s 65(2)(c) Evidence Act exception where maker not available – admission of electronically recorded interview with deceased complainant – approach to be taken in determining reliability of representations in interview – whether primary judge erred in taking “global approach” contrary to Sio v R (2016) 259 CLR 47 EVIDENCE – hearsay – s 65(2)(c) Evidence Act exception where maker not available – whether primary judge erred in finding that representations made in circumstances that make it highly probable they are reliable – relevance of prior inconsistent representations – whether matters relevant to credibility but not part of “circumstances” under s 65(2) EVIDENCE – s 137 Evidence Act exclusion of prejudicial evidence in criminal proceedings – unfair prejudice alleged to arise from inability to cross-examine complainant – whether primary judge took into account an irrelevant consideration in noting the “public interest” in prosecuting serious crimes – danger of unfair prejudice did not outweigh probative value CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – sexual assault – whether Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that complainant did not consent to Counts 2, 4, 5 – open to judge to hold no reasonable doubt as to Count 3 SENTENCING – re-sentence on appeal – offence of aggravated sexual assault – forcible anal rape of cognitively impaired and physically disabled complainant – need for general and specific deterrence

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Appeal – Where applicant had pleaded guilty to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – Where applicant asked the sentencing judge to take additional offences into account on a Form 1 – Where applicant had a severe psychotic mental illness which was causally related to his offending – Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s mental illness – Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the evidence of the applicant’s childhood deprivation and exposure to alcohol abuse and violence – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – Objectively serious offending and an associated need to protect the community – Strong subjective case – Ground of appeal asserting manifest excess established – Special circumstances justifying adjustment of statutory ratio – Applicant re-sentenced

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Appeal – Applicant seeking an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal against sentence – Where applicant pleaded guilty to the supply of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Evidence of money derived from that supply – Whether sentencing judge erred in treating the applicant’s financial gain as an aggravating factor – Where sentencing judge made no express reference to that being an aggravating factor – Where sentence proceedings not conducted on that basis – No ambiguity in the sentencing judge’s reasons – Unwarranted parsing of reasons – Ground of appeal not made out – Extension of time refused

CRIME — Appeal — Appeal against conviction — point not raised below – where expert evidence admitted in first trial was ruled inadmissible in second trial – where ruling of trial judge in second trial was upheld in Court of Criminal Appeal – where following second trial the applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction in first trial – where no objection was taken to evidence at first trial – leave granted under r 4 Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) as admission of the evidence led to a miscarriage of justice CRIME — Appeal — Appeal against conviction — miscarriage of justice — where Crown relied on the complainant’s drawing depicting an “abnormal skin flap” on applicant’s penis – where Crown adduced expert evidence from a general practitioner that there was no “major abnormality” in the applicant’s penis but it was “moderately unusual” – where general practitioner did not have specialised knowledge of anatomy or urology based on relevant training, study or experience – where jury invited to make comparison of drawing and photograph based on expert evidence of abnormality – held, admission of evidence led to miscarriage of justice – appeal allowed, conviction set aside – verdict of acquittal entered

CRIME — appeal against conviction — murder by shooting — evidence that one of two men present at the scene shot the deceased — where Crown case put in the alternative that the applicant was either the shooter or in a joint criminal enterprise with the shooter — evidence in Crown case tending to exclude the applicant as the shooter — whether verdict unreasonable

CIVIL LAW - appeal from Local court to Supreme Court - denial of natural justice - self-represented litigant - interlocutory application - application for stay of judgment pending appeal - application for stay of writ of execution - whether refusal to stay judgment renders nugatory the proposed appeal -

CRIMINAL LAW – murder – joint criminal enterprise - self-defence – excessive self-defence – use of ERISP of one accused in the case of another – consideration of relevant provisions of the Evidence Act – potential prejudice to the Crown case

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Contract – the Plaintiff (a landowner) and the Defendant (a developer) entered into a contractual arrangement by which the Plaintiff would sell her property to the Defendant for $3.5M of which $2.5M was payable in cash and which included an agreement that the Defendant would on completion of the development reconvey to the Plaintiff two lots (which later became three lots) with completed dwellings (a “House” and a “Duplex”) constructed on the lots (“the Reconveyance Contract”) – a “Sunset Clause” provided that the contract could be rescinded by either party “at any time” after 24 May 2017; registration of the relevant subdivision plans was achieved by May 2018. The parties then fell into a dispute concerning the dimensions of the residences required by the Reconveyance Contract to be constructed – issues which arose were: (1) whether the Defendant was in breach of the Reconveyance Contract in failing to complete the construction and reconveyance; (2) whether specific performance or an order for partial specific performance was available; (3) whether the Defendant had a contractual right of rescission pursuant to the Sunset Clause (cl 32.1.4 of the Reconveyance Contract); (4) whether the limitation on damages in cl 32 of the Reconveyance Contract was limited to rescission; (5) whether the reference in cl 30.1 of the Reconveyance Contract to 241.54m2 was a reference to the size of the Duplex or to the two residences forming part of the Duplex –Held: (1) the dimensions of 241.54m2 is a reference to the total area of the Duplex rather than a reference to each residence; (2) the Defendant was in breach of the requirement to provide a layout plan for the House and the Duplex but this breach was rectified in late 2018; (3) the Defendant was not otherwise in breach of the Reconveyance Contract. The long delay in registration of the relevant plans of subdivision was not the fault of the Defendant. The Defendant had not wilfully and deliberately failed to achieve completion of the contract and non-completion was a consequence of the dispute about dimensions; (4) the limitation on damages was not limited to rescission; (5) specific performance or partial specific performance not available because the Defendant by failing to complete was not in breach of the contract and is willing and able to complete the Reconveyance Contract. LAND LAW — Conveyancing — Contract for sale — Rescission – The Defendant cross claimed seeking permission pursuant to s 66ZS(6) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) (“the Conveyancing Act”) to rescind the Reconveyance Contract and later amended its cross claim to rely on s 66ZS which is the successor to s 66ZL (see s 66ZU).There were long delays in registration of the relevant plans of subdivision. The Reconveyance Contract contained a “Sunset Clause” which permitted either party to rescind if various “Conditional Matters” had not been achieved by a particular date, i.e. 24 May 2017 – Held: (1) cross claim dismissed – rescission by the Defendant should not be permitted pursuant to s 66ZS of the Conveyancing Act because it was not just and equitable to permit the Defendant to rescind. EQUITY — Equitable remedies — Specific performance – whether an order for specific performance or partial specific performance was available – Held: specific performance or partial specific performance not available because the Defendant was not in breach of the contract and is willing and able to complete the Reconveyance Contract. EVIDENCE — Privileges — Without prejudice privilege – whether without prejudice correspondence should be admitted – Held: (1) correspondence allowed into evidence – the status of the letter was doubtful but, in any event, if privileged a misleading impression would be created if that content was excluded.

CRIME – SENTENCE – guilty plea – manslaughter – fight between two armed men - excessive self-defence – use of weapon – relevance of drug addiction to sentence

BAIL – Show cause – proposed home detention – and electronic monitoring – risk sufficiently ameliorated.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Alternative dispute resolution – Court referral to referee – Court’s use of report – in a May 2019 judgment of the Court the first plaintiff and the first defendant were found to each hold a 50% interest in certain real property – the balance of the proceedings concerning the parties’ contributions to the improvement of that property was to be determined by a referee, pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 20 – the referee produced a report to the Court on 25 May 2020 – the defendants seek orders that this report be adopted – the first and second plaintiff resist the making of such an order – where the report does not consider the contributions made to the real property by the second plaintiff, a family trust – where other complaints are made about the report the first and second plaintiff seek an adjournment to put on further evidence.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for interlocutory injunction – passing off – misleading or deceptive conduct – where defendant without authority using similar name to plaintiff – where serious question to be tried established – where balance of convenience favoured making order

FAMILY AND CHILD WELFARE – parens patriae jurisdiction – Aboriginal young person under the parental responsibility of the Minister for all aspects except culture and religion – where orders previously made authorising medical treatment and confinement of the young person as an inpatient in a medical facility for the purposes of undertaking that treatment – where orders previously made authorising the confinement of the young person to secure premises outside the medical facility after discharge from the medical facility for the purposes of continuing medical treatment as an outpatient and rehabilitation and recovery and to protect the young person from risk to their safety – where young person has frequently absconded from the secure premises – whether appropriate to continue the previous orders – appropriate to continue previous orders pending the plaintiffs arranging a more suitable placement and otherwise subject to ongoing review by the Court

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Approval of settlement – Where proceedings purportedly settled at mediation – Where plaintiff’s tutor self-represented – Where tutor asserted that she was misled at the mediation as to the amount of costs to be deducted from any settlement sum and paid to the plaintiff’s former solicitors – Clear issue as to whether a settlement had been effected – Evidence otherwise insufficient to form a view as to whether the settlement was just or otherwise – Settlement not approved – Orders made for the further management of the proceedings including order for referral for pro bono assistance

EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Proceedings between trustees and beneficiaries — Administration of trust — Access to trust documents CIVIL PROCEDURE — Stay — Pending proceedings in other court — Arbitration — Comity and other considerations

CRIME - sentence - accessory after murder - "execution"-style shooting - offender married to co-offender - helped drive away co-offenders and organised escape from jurisdiction - lying to police - no criminal record - six children - good character - limited remorse - custodial sentence - discount for guilty plea - special circumstances

CORPORATIONS – winding up – approval of liquidator’s remuneration and internal disbursements – no issue of principle CORPORATIONS – winding up – distribution of surplus – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 488(2) – grant of special leave to distribute surplus to contributories, subject to direction under Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), 90-15 CORPORATIONS – winding up – application for release of the liquidator and deregistration of the company – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 480(d) – where application is prematurely made – appropriate to adjourn application to later date

COSTS - party/party – preliminary discovery – where Registrar ordered preliminary discovery against two parties – where review of Registrar’s decision sought by one party – where after hearing of review application defendant made offer to provide documents - whether offer amounted to surrender - where defendant did not provide any explanation of what changed to explain why offer was eventually made - where plaintiff’s position remained unchanged throughout - where plaintiff entitled to costs of the notice of motion to review the Registrar’s decision

COSTS — Party/Party — Orders against non-parties — Personal costs orders against lawyers

CORPORATIONS – winding up – where company in liquidation – where assets available in liquidation sufficient to declare dividend to priority creditors – application by liquidators for directions concerning proposed distributions to priority creditors – Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Sch 2 – Corporations Act s 556(1) CORPORATIONS – where secured creditor advanced moneys to administrators – whether administrators entitled to indemnity for monies borrowed – Corporations Act ss 443A(1) and 443D – whether administrators liability to the secured creditor is a priority claim – Corporations Act s 556(1)(c) CORPORATIONS – where receivers made payments to former employees after commencement of winding up – whether secured creditor entitled to be subrogated to priority position of employee creditors – Corporations Act s 556(1)(e) – where receivers failed to pay amounts owing to other employees under s 556(1)(e) – Corporations Act, s 433(3) – where secured creditor acknowledged liability to company for amounts not paid by receivers to other employee creditors – whether insolvency set-off available – Corporations Act, s 553C(1) – whether secured creditor had notice of fact of insolvency at time of receiving credit from the company – Corporations Act, s 553C(2) – whether equitable set-off available as alternative to insolvency set-off EQUITY – whether rule in Cherry v Boultbee available as alternative to insolvency set-off CORPORATIONS – where creditor made payment on account of employees’ wages at the direction of the company – whether creditor entitled to priority for payment – Corporations Act s 560 and s 556(1)(e)

CIVIL PROCEDURE – advance ruling as to admissibility of evidence – s 192A Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – parties enter into “Standstill Agreement” by which they agree to conduct without prejudice negotiations in relation to new agreement for lease –whether impugned material is within provisions of Standstill Agreement or subject of without prejudice privilege and inadmissible under s 131 of the Evidence Act – held that internal documents not created “in relation to” proposed new agreement for lease and not within terms of Standstill Agreement – internal documents held not to be communications between persons in dispute within meaning of s 131 – held that absence of material at trial may create misleading impression of inactivity in relation to status of new lease – ruling that most of impugned material not inadmissible.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME – Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 – application for exclusion order – property including interest in bank account – deposits made to account by way of money laundering – “cuckoo smurfing” – whether property ceased to be proceeds of crime – whether circumstances were such that would not arouse a reasonable suspicion that the property was proceeds of an offence or an instrument of an offence

APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – no issue of principle or question of public importance identified

APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – no issue of principle

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment – no persuasive reason or basis to adjourn – application dismissed.

APPEALS – reopening application by non-party – stay of orders pending determination of reopening application – extension of stay granted by court making orders – admissibility of further evidence PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay – joinder of affected party – whether opportunity to be heard – whether arguable case to adduce further evidence – balance of convenience

APPEALS — Application for leave to appeal — principles to be applied in determining whether a person poses a risk to the safety of children under s 18 Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) – application of principles stated in M v M – whether allegations are to be assessed by three-step process – whether lingering doubt to count against applicant – whether Tribunal failed to consider accumulated weight of allegations – held, issue of principle raised – leave to appeal granted

CIVIL PROCEDURE – stay of proceedings – applicant a medical practitioner facing disciplinary proceedings in Tribunal and pending criminal proceedings – both proceedings to deal with the same alleged misconduct – application of Zhao (2015) 255 CLR 46 – applicant would suffer prejudice if disciplinary proceedings not stayed until criminal proceedings resolved – applicant’s registration as a medical practitioner suspended – delay in resolving disciplinary proceedings a relevant but not critical factor

CRIME – bail – appeals bail - release application – whether special or exceptional circumstances exist justifying release on bail – where applicant relies on a combination of factors to satisfy the test – where appeal has reasonably arguable prospects of success – where applicant has been unable to access medical treatment in custody – where applicant is a good candidate for bail – conditional bail granted

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – jury verdict of guilty to an alternative count of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm – Crown concession of error by trial judge in refusing to admit a video into evidence – whether proviso should be applied – whether oral testimony contrary to the Crown case was obviously false – unnecessary to consider whether case was extreme – powerful prosecution case – credibility of witnesses was crucial – witness’ credibility undermined by evidence of police officer – witness credibility supported by the video – appellant denied fair chance of acquittal – new trial ordered

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal against sentence – Whether sentencing judge erred in failing to give effect to finding of special circumstances – Sentencing judge plainly considered the effect accumulation would have on the overall length of time spent in custody – No error established CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal against sentence – Where sentencing judge erred by one day in fixing commencement date for firearms offences – Minor error in calculation not a legal error requiring the exercise of sentencing discretion afresh – Application of Lehn v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 205 – Sentence adjusted by one calendar day

COURTS AND JUDGES - bias - apprehended bias –appeal – judge-alone trial - where trial judge recognised a crucial Crown witness as a shop assistant with whom she had dealt over a lengthy period – where the credibility of the witness and the applicant were in issue - where judge should have disqualified herself - where new trial ordered CRIME - appeals - appeal against conviction - unreasonable verdict - where applicant found guilty of historical sex offences - whether findings of guilt were reasonably open - whether there had been substitution of the applicant for another perpetrator - where a number of other persons who worked at the home were convicted of sexual offences - where evidence does not disclose any basis for the submission that displacement had occurred - where trial judge did not find applicant to be reliable witness - where trial judge formed a favourable impression of complainants notwithstanding some shortcomings in their memories - where no reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – Offence of supplying not less than a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – Whether sentencing judge erred in characterising conduct as slightly above the mid-range of objective seriousness – Eschewing labels – Where applicant played trusted and integral role in large scale drug supply – No error in assessment CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – Manifest excess – Whether sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances – Statistic relating to sentences imposed for supplying large commercial quantity of drugs – Sentence not manifestly excessive in the circumstances

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal pursuant to s 5F – interlocutory decisions – whether error in refusing an application for separate trials – whether failure to properly construe and apply ss 97, 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) in finding that the evidence with respect to each of the complainants was admissible as tendency evidence – whether error in not excluding evidence due to risk of unfair prejudice to applicant pursuant to s 101 of the Evidence Act.

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Appeal – Applicant an unlawful non-citizen who pleaded guilty to offences arising from dishonestly obtaining a passport and associated offences of revenue fraud – Whether sentencing judge erred by taking into account the fact that the applicant was an unlawful non-citizen when assessing the objective seriousness of the fraud offences – Applicant’s unlawful citizenship status inextricably linked to the fact that he was not entitled to the benefits he obtained – Error not established CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Appeal – Applicant an unlawful non-citizen who pleaded guilty to offences arising from dishonestly obtaining a passport and associated offences of revenue fraud – Whether sentencing judge erred in finding that the fraud offences were well above the mid-range and moving towards the upper end of the scale of objective seriousness – Error not established – Observations as to the breach of trust inherently involved in offending of this kind

SENTENCING - appeal against sentence - doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice - where applicant’s subjective circumstances revealed profound disadvantage and dysfunction - whether sentencing judge failed to find that the applicant’s moral culpability was reduced by reason of her disadvantaged background and mental health - where ample evidence of relationship between appellant’s circumstances and offending - where sentencing judge acknowledged personal subjective circumstances but did not take into account when sentencing - where merely referencing circumstances is insufficient - where sentencing judge ought to have mitigated the weight to be given to general deterrence