2025/00451706
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| /2026 | Appellant | Summons seeking leave to appeal |
| 20/02/2026 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 1.5 MB) |
| 26/09/2025 | Appellant | Affidavit |
| 16/07/2026 | Appellant | Reply Affidavit (PDF, 6.1 MB) |
| 6/02/2026 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 1.5 MB) |
| 30/06/2026 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 452.4 KB) |
| /2026 | Appellant | Reply submissions (PDF, 1.8 MB) |
| 20/02/2026 | Appellant | Notice of Constitutional Matter (PDF, 3.4 MB) |
ADMIN LAW (other) – the appellant is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by Wilson J on 8 November 2018 following his conviction of murder by a jury on 25 May 2018 – the appellant’s sentence is set to expire on 2 October 2037, with a non-parole period expiring on 2 October 2031 – on 3 February 2023, the appellant was unsuccessful in the Court of Criminal Appeal in an appeal against his conviction – by amended summons filed in the Supreme Court on 30 July 2025, the appellant sought relief in the form of “a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Governor of Macquarie Correctional Centre to bring the plaintiff before the Court pursuant to s 71 of the Supreme Court Act 1970”, “an order that the [appellant] be released from custody forthwith” and declaratory relief as to the validity of his conviction and sentence – the appellant complained of several deficiencies in his criminal trial which he said rendered his conviction and sentence a nullity, and argued that the only appropriate relief was his immediate release – pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW), the appellant (being a person convicted of a serious indictable offence) required leave to institute the proceedings – the primary judge retroactively granted the appellant leave pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act – the primary judge held that, until set aside, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant by Wilson J stands as legal authority for the appellant’s detention – the primary judge further held that the declaratory relief sought by the appellant was not amenable to decision in the proceedings as the issues raised had been finally determined in the appellant’s unsuccessful appeal against conviction – the primary judge dismissed the proceedings – whether the primary judge failed to respond to a substantial and clearly articulated argument, misdirected himself as to jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, failed to afford natural justice, or acted unreasonably.
Fantakis v Governor of Macquarie Correctional Centre [2025] NSWSC 996
Last updated: