CITATION: Milat - Inquiry into conviction and sentence [2008] NSWSC 732 HEARING DATE(S): On written submissions
JUDGMENT DATE :
17 July 2008JURISDICTION: Criminal JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL DECISION: Application refused CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - APPLICATION UNDER S 78 - third application made - whether trial judge's ruling erroneous - whether applicant denied procedural fairness - whether grounds raise a question of doubt as to guilt - strong Crown case LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001CATEGORY: Principal judgment PARTIES: Ivan Robert Marko Milat (Applicant) FILE NUMBER(S): SC 71007/07 SOLICITORS:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LISTMcCLELLAN CJ at CL
71007/07 MILAT, Ivan Robert MarkoTHURSDAY, 17 JULY 2008
DECISION
APPLICATION FOR INQUIRY INTO CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: Ivan Robert Marko Milat has applied to the court for an order that there be an inquiry into his conviction pursuant to s 474D of the Crimes Act 1900. Mr Milat has previously made two applications under s 474D both of which have been declined by the court. In the first of those applications Barr J considered the detailed submissions lodged by Mr Milat and concluded that for the most part the matters raised in the application had been dealt with at trial and on appeal. In relation to other matters his Honour concluded that he had:
- “No unease and no sense of disquiet in allowing the convictions to stand. No doubt or question about the guilt of the applicant arises on the material he relies on.”
2 I considered the second application and concluded:
- “There is nothing in the material submitted by the applicant in support of his present application which provides a basis for concluding that there is a doubt or question as to his guilt or which otherwise represents a mitigating circumstance that would support the referral of this matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I have no unease and no sense of disquiet in allowing the convictions to stand. The material provided by the applicant does not raise a doubt or question about his guilt.”
3 Mr Milat has lodged detailed written submissions in support of the present application. Although the application has been framed under s 474D that provision has been repealed. The relevant provisions are now found in the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. I shall treat the application as one made pursuant to s 78 of that Act.
4 In his submissions Mr Milat refers to a television program in which Mr Clive Small, a police officer apparently in charge of the investigations of Mr Milat’s crimes, made comments about the matter. Mr Small allegedly said that there was no police evidence to suggest that Mr Milat acted with another person in committing the murders. The Crown prosecutor gave an interview on the same program. He apparently said that it was no part of the Crown case to prove that any person other than Mr Milat was involved in the murders.
5 Mr Milat now complains that the trial judge’s ruling that the Crown did not have to prove whether Mr Milat acted alone or in company was in some respects erroneous. His argument appears to be that because the Crown could not prove whether or not another person or persons was involved its case was flawed and he should not have been convicted.
6 In my opinion this submission is without merit. As I understand the Crown case it only sought to prove that Mr Milat committed the crimes. It was no part of the Crown case that others may have been involved. That case was made good and when I previously reviewed the matter I was satisfied, as was Justice Barr that it was a strong Crown case. It must be remembered that the matter was the subject of appeals including an application to the High Court.
7 Mr Milat also complains that in some manner he was denied procedural fairness during the course of his trial. The matters of which he speaks were the subject of evidence at his trial when an opportunity to place submissions before the jury with respect to them was available. I can see no basis for complaint about those matters. Notwithstanding the previous appeal and applications it has not previously been suggested that the trial was not fair for the reasons now raised.
8 The material provided by the applicant does not raise a doubt or question about his guilt.
9 The application is refused.
- AGLC
- Milat - Inquiry into conviction and sentence [2008] NSWSC 732
- Case
- [2008] NSWSC 732
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the trial judge's decision and found that it had been made without any error. The judge had considered all relevant evidence and arguments presented by both parties and had arrived at a conclusion that was both reasonable and just. The court further held that Milat had not been denied procedural fairness, as all necessary steps had been taken to ensure that his rights were protected throughout the trial process. The strong evidence presented by the Crown was also considered, and the court concluded that it did not raise any doubts about Milat's guilt.
In light of the above findings, the court dismissed the application and upheld the original conviction and sentence. The court found that the trial judge's decision was correct and that no grounds for a review had been established. The applicant's conviction and sentence therefore remained in place, and the court's decision was final.
No further orders were made by the court. The applicant's third application for a review of his conviction and sentence was dismissed, and the original judgment was affirmed. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the trial judge's ruling, the procedural fairness afforded to the applicant, and the strength of the Crown's case against the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.