Application by Sef Gonzales pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) (No 2)

The case involved an application by Sef Gonzales under section 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) for an inquiry into three convictions for murder. The applicant had previously appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was unsuccessful, and had made a previous application for a Part 7 inquiry. Gonzales was representing himself and believed that the judge had found new exculpatory evidence. The court considered the alleged prejudicial conduct of the Crown prosecutor and the alleged incompetence of the defence counsel. There was no doubt or question as to the applicant's guilt.

The primary legal issue was whether it was appropriate to determine the second application for a Part 7 inquiry, given the applicant's misunderstanding of the reasons given in respect of the previous application. The court had to consider whether Gonzales had misunderstood the reasons given by the judge in relation to the previous application, and whether the alleged prejudicial conduct of the Crown prosecutor and the alleged incompetence of the defence counsel were sufficient grounds for a Part 7 inquiry.

The court held that it was appropriate to determine the second application for a Part 7 inquiry. The court found that Gonzales had misunderstood the reasons given by the judge in relation to the previous application. The court noted that there was no doubt or question as to Gonzales' guilt, and that the alleged prejudicial conduct of the Crown prosecutor and the alleged incompetence of the defence counsel did not provide sufficient grounds for a Part 7 inquiry. The court dismissed the application.

The court did not make any orders in relation to the application. Gonzales' convictions for murder remained unchanged. The court emphasised that there was no doubt or question as to Gonzales' guilt, and that the alleged prejudicial conduct of the Crown prosecutor and the alleged incompetence of the defence counsel did not provide sufficient grounds for a Part 7 inquiry.