A five-judge panel will decide next year whether a guideline judgment on "unprovoked, random and gratuitous" one-punch killings should be handed down following Thomas Kelly's death in Sydney's King Cross.
Last month, Kieran Loveridge was sentenced to at least four years for the manslaughter of 18-year-old Thomas Kelly in an unprovoked one-punch attack in Kings Cross last year.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is appealing Loveridge's sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly inadequate.
However, both the DPP and NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith are also seeking a guideline judgment on similar manslaughter cases.
They have invited the court to make a guideline judgment on "unprovoked, random and gratuitous offences perpetrated by a single or limited number of blows resulting in death".
Guideline judgments give guidance to judges in relation to how they should sentence offenders, with the aim of reducing inconsistency in sentencing.
In a brief hearing on Thursday, Justice Clifton Hoeben was told the Crown is currently also appealing the case of Daniel Wood, which was described as being similar to the Loveridge matter.
Wood was jailed for at least five years in the District Court last month for killing 71-year-old Mary Touma by shoving her to the ground in May 2010.
Loveridge's sentence sparked community outrage, with Mr Kelly's parents expressing their grief and horror at its length.
Within days, the state government announced the introduction of a new "one-punch" offence, which could carry a maximum 20-year sentence.
Justice Hoeben said a five-judge panel would sit next year to ascertain whether a guideline judgment should be handed down.
He said there may be some difficulties given the "vagueness" of the DPP's statement.
Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, who will head the panel, has also asked for submissions on any constitutional implications.
Phillip Boulten, SC, representing Loveridge, said he would prefer not to be involved in the guideline judgment process at all.
"There's a prejudicial unfairness against us in the guideline to start with," he said.
"If (Loveridge) is to suffer an increase in sentence he should know about it sooner rather than later."
The matter will return to court next year.
