Application by Christopher John Laycock under s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001

The applicant, Christopher John Laycock, applied to the Court for an inquiry into his sentence under section 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. Laycock had previously pleaded guilty to five counts of criminal offences committed while he was a police officer. His application sought to challenge the sentence imposed on him, alleging that the sentencing judge had proceeded on an incorrect factual basis. Laycock argued that the statement of "agreed facts" used in his sentencing contained errors and was not agreed to by him. He also contended that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and that there was a disparity between his sentence and that of his co-offender. Additionally, Laycock argued that the sentencing judge had failed to take into account the extra-curial punishment he had suffered through the loss of his family home.

The court was required to determine whether there were grounds for an inquiry into the sentence under section 78 of the Act. It also needed to decide whether the circumstances warranted a referral of the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal under section 79(1) of the Act. Laycock's grounds for the application had already been considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal and dismissed, and he had not sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The court examined the arguments presented by Laycock and considered whether any errors had been made by the sentencing judge or the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The court found no error on the part of the sentencing judge and no error established by the Court of Criminal Appeal. It concluded that there were no facts or circumstances that would cause a sense of disquiet or unease with respect to the sentence imposed. The court held that Laycock had not established any grounds for an inquiry into his sentence under section 78 of the Act. Similarly, there were no grounds for a direction or referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal under section 79(1) of the Act. The application was dismissed, and no further action was taken.

The court dismissed the application, finding no grounds for an inquiry into the sentence or a referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant's arguments were rejected, and no error was found in the sentencing process. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that there were no circumstances warranting further review.