AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 10 December 2003

R v CJP; R v CAD; R v MES

[2003] NSWCCA 363

Sexual offences
CRIMINAL LAW COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Citation: R v CJP; R v CAD; R v MES [2003] NSWCCA 363
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 10 December 2003
Judge(s): Sheller JA, Hidden J, Carruthers AJ

Background

This judgment concerns a correction to an earlier Court of Criminal Appeal decision, R v CJP; R v CAD; R v MES [2003] NSWCCA 187, delivered on 21 July 2003. That earlier judgment involved appeals by the Crown against three respondents convicted in the District Court before Moore AJ on various sexual assault charges.

After the July 2003 judgment was delivered, it came to the Court's attention that paragraph 3(e) of that decision contained an error. The charge described in that paragraph had been attributed to the wrong complainant.

The Court reconvened to correct the record so that the charge in paragraph 3(e) was properly described as relating to the complainant identified as GS, not ELP as originally stated.

  • Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had the power to correct an error in the recitation of a charge in its earlier judgment by application of the slip rule.

Decision

The Court found that a clerical or transcription error had occurred in the recitation of one of the charges against the respondent CJP in the original July 2003 judgment. The charge at paragraph 3(e), which concerned sexual intercourse without consent in circumstances of aggravation involving a complainant aged 13 years, had been incorrectly attributed to the complainant ELP rather than GS.

The Court applied the slip rule to correct this error. The slip rule is a procedural mechanism that allows a court to amend a judgment to fix errors that do not reflect the court's actual intention, such as mistakes in transcription or recitation. No substantive issue of law or fresh determination of the appeal was involved.

The amended paragraph 3(e) now correctly identifies GS as the complainant, and records that the offending occurred between 14 and 15 November 2000 at Macquarie Fields, involving sexual intercourse without consent with a person aged 13 years, contrary to section 61J of the relevant Act, with a maximum penalty at the time of 20 years imprisonment.

Orders Made

  • Paragraph 3(e) of R v CJP; R v CAD; R v MES [2003] NSWCCA 187 amended to substitute the complainant's name from ELP to GS.

Key Takeaways

  • The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that the slip rule is available to correct errors in the recitation of charges in a judgment, where those errors do not reflect the court's actual intention.
  • A correction of this kind does not constitute a fresh determination of the appeal or alter the substantive outcome of the earlier decision.
  • The slip rule applies to clerical or transcription errors, such as the misidentification of a complainant in the statement of charges, rather than to errors of law or fact requiring substantive reconsideration.
  • In applying the slip rule, the Court amended the specific paragraph in the earlier judgment without disturbing any other part of that decision.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Section 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (sexual intercourse without consent in circumstances of aggravation)

Cases:
- R v CJP; R v CAD; R v MES [2003] NSWCCA 187 (the original judgment subject to correction)