Stevens - Application pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 by

In the case, the applicant sought an inquiry into the sentence imposed following his conviction. The applicant claimed that the sentencing judge had taken additional offences into account during the sentencing process. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues at hand were whether the Crown's erroneous submission to the sentencing judge created a sense of unease in the sentence imposed and whether the benefit to the offender constituted by the deposit of funds into accounts rather than by the withdrawal of money. The court also had to determine if other inconsistencies identified were capable of producing a different result in the sentence.

The court examined the submissions and found that the Crown's erroneous submission did not give rise to a sense of unease in the sentence imposed. The sentence was considered lenient given the total criminality involved in the offending. The court also found that the expression of charges on the indictment was in conformity with the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1900 and the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Furthermore, the benefit to the offender was constituted by the deposit of funds into accounts, not by the withdrawal of money. The other inconsistencies identified were not capable of producing a different result in the sentence.

The application was ultimately refused by the court. The reasoning was that the Crown's erroneous submission did not create a sense of unease in the sentence imposed, and the sentence was considered lenient given the total criminality involved. Additionally, the expression of charges on the indictment was in conformity with the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1900 and the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The benefit to the offender was constituted by the deposit of funds into accounts, and the other inconsistencies identified were not capable of producing a different result in the sentence.