____Ian McLachlan

Admitted as a legal practitioner in 1997
Admitted as a barrister in 1999

Ian McLachlan has specialised in criminal law for over 25 years. He has a diverse national practice, principally appearing in New South Wales. He has considerable experience in jury trials and regularly appears in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, the Supreme Court, District Court and Local Court of New South Wales. He has also appeared in the High Court of Australia.

Ian has considerable experience and specialist knowledge in a broad range of areas - including criminal law, corporate crime, disciplinary proceedings, commissions of inquiry and coronial inquests.  He has appeared in a number of high profile appeals and trials.
 
Ian has appeared in cases involving the full range of state offences, including murder, sexual offences and major drug crime. He has also appeared in many complex federal criminal matters, such as those involving insider trading, taxation fraud and large drug importations. 

Principal areas of practice

  • Criminal law
  • Corporate crime
  • Appellate
  • Statutory offences
  • Commissions of inquiry and inquests
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Environmental offences

​Appeal cases of note
​
  • Robertson v R [2024] NSWCCA 99: This appeal concerned whether the trial judge erred in failing to leave to the jury the alternative verdict of manslaughter on the basis of ‘excessive self-defence’ pursuant to s.421 of the Crimes Act 1900. The Court held (by majority) that ‘excessive self-defence’ did arise even in circumstances where it could not be established that a particular individual had caused the death of the deceased and that it was therefore an error for ‘excessive self-defence’ not to have been left to the jury;
 
  • Schoffel v R [2023] NSWCCA 88: This appeal addressed the issue of whether there had been compliance with the requirements of s 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 in a judge-alone trial;
 
  • Ah Keni v R [2021] NSWCCA 263: This appeal addressed the issue of whether the sentencing judge erred in taking into account silence as an act of an accessory after the fact. The Court held that the offence of accessory after the fact contrary to s.347 of the Crimes Act 1900 involved taking active steps to assist the principal(s) and that it did not include the mere failure to report an offence committed by those principal(s);
 
  • Young v R [2021] NSWCCA 163: This appeal concerned whether the sentencing judge erred in notionally setting the indicative sentences as a separate error of law. The Court held that the setting of the indicative sentences constituted error;
 
  • Trevascus v R [2021] NSWCCA 104: This appeal addressed the issue of whether the provision of written directions to the jury regarding the elements of the offences without any oral explanation constituted an error of law. The matter involved an interpretation of s.55B of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). The Court held that such a procedure constituted a fundamental error such as to give rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice;
 
  • Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 244; Noonan v R [2021] NSWCCA 35: These appeals addressed the issue of whether consideration of indicative sentences can give rise to specific error on appeal in the context of considering an aggregate sentence. The Court held that the principle of totality applies to the indicative sentences and that error can be established in this regard separate from whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive;
 
  • Waterstone v R [2020] NSWCCA 117: This appeal addressed the issue of whether the sentencing Court erred in failing to impose a non-parole period under s.45 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)/single recognizance release order under s.19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (i.e. a minimum term) when sentencing an offender for both state and federal offences;
 
  • RG v R [2020] NSWCCA 17: This appeal addressed the issue of whether certain convictions for perjury controverted earlier verdicts of acquittals entered in favour of the appellant at trial;
 
  • Bloodsworth v R [2019] NSWCCA 260: This appeal addressed the issue of whether a jury conviction for manslaughter based on joint criminal enterprise was unreasonable. The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and the applicant was released forthwith at the hearing having served more than four years in custody;  
 
  • DS v R [2018] NSWCCA 195: This appeal addressed the issue of an accused having, many years earlier, been acquitted of offending because of the common law presumption of doli incapax, whether such evidence could be relied upon as prior tendency evidence against the accused relevant only to the actus reus of alleged later offending. A majority held that such evidence ought not to have been admitted at all, with all finding that the jury had been misdirected regarding the use of such evidence;
 
  • Tran v R [2017] NSWCCA 93: This appeal involved an application seeking leave to appeal pursuant to s 5F(3)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against a pre-trial ruling declining to uphold an objection by the applicant’s father under s 18(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to giving evidence as a witness for the prosecution against her. The requirements of s.18(2) were considered, the appeal allowed and the s.18(2) objection remitted for determination in accordance with law;
 
  • Cheng v R [2017] NSWCCA 63: This appeal addressed the issue of whether an offence under s 400.3(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code (Cth) of dealing with money required that the offender intend, at the time of dealing with the money, that it “will become” an instrument of crime, and otherwise involved consideration of whether the money was actually “used” in the commission of an offence;
 
  • Bidgood v R [2016] NSWCCA 138: This appeal addressed the issue of whether an offender was disentitled to the benefit of prior good character by reference to the subject offending which involved the ongoing supply of drugs;
   
  • Lambert v R [2015] NSWCCA 22: This appeal addressed the issue of the options available to the Court when dealing with a revoked s.12 bond. It is authority for the proposition that contentions could be raised on appeal even though such contentions were not raised before the sentencing judge where the “interests of justice” so permitted;
 
  • Ibrahim Jidah v R [2014] NSWCCA 269: This appeal addressed the issue, inter alia, of whether the elements for an offence of supplying a prohibited drug were contained in the offence of possessing a precursor where the precursor and prohibited drug were the same, such as give rise to a plea in bar or abuse of process;
 
  • Ali v R [2014] NSWCCA 45: This appeal addressed whether, following a referral to the Court under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 post Muldrock, the Court could take into account evidence not available to the original sentencing judge such as post-sentence expressions of remorse;
 
  • DW v R [2014] NSWCCA 28: This appeal addressed the issue of whether a recording of a conversation was reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of the complainant and therefore fell within an exception to the prohibition in s 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007;
   
  • Collier v R [2012] NSWCCA 213: This appeal addressed the issue of whether the serving of a period of custody for the first time was capable of constituting special circumstances.

For further details or enquiries regarding Ian McLachlan’s areas of expertise, fees and terms of engagement please contact his Clerk.


CONTACT HERE
Forbes Logo