Citation: Yeonata v R (No. 2) [2013] NSWCCA 59
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 14 March 2013
Judge(s): Macfarlan JA, Johnson J, Davies J
Background
This decision is a sequel to an earlier appeal, Yeonata v R [2012] NSWCCA 211, in which the Court of Criminal Appeal had granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and re-sentenced the appellant on 11 December 2012. The re-sentencing involved categorising multiple charged sequences into groups based on seriousness, with a standard sentence applied to each group.
After judgment was delivered, it came to the court's attention that one sequence, sequence 120, had been omitted from the re-sentencing orders. Investigation revealed that the Court Attendance Notice for that sequence had simply not been included in the appeal books, which explained why it was overlooked.
Sequence 120 charged a further offence of knowingly dealing in the proceeds of crime, involving a stolen and altered cheque for $2,930.10, with no additional Form 1 offences attached.
Legal Issues
- Whether the court had power to correct the omission of sequence 120 from its sentencing orders after the 14-day correction period under r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules had passed.
- What sentence should be imposed for sequence 120 consistent with the court's original sentencing framework.
Decision
The omission of sequence 120 arose purely because the relevant Court Attendance Notice was absent from the appeal books. There was no substantive reason for treating it differently from similar sequences already dealt with.
The court noted that the 14-day period under r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules had expired before the error was brought to its attention. However, the court held that, independently of that rule, it retains an inherent power to correct accidental slips or omissions in its orders to ensure those orders reflect the court's true intention. The court cited R v Brett Andrew Green [2011] NSWCCA 71 in support of this principle.
Applying the same framework used in the original re-sentencing, the court determined that sequence 120 fell within the first group of offences, being offences involving $4,000 or less with no Form 1 matters attached. The standard sentence for that group was therefore applied to sequence 120.
Orders Made
- Order 4(a) from the judgment of 11 December 2012 was varied to include sequence 120 among the sequences receiving a non-parole period of one year commencing 3 March 2010 and expiring 2 March 2011, with an additional term of four months expiring 2 July 2011.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that it holds an inherent power to correct accidental slips or omissions in its orders, operating independently of the 14-day time limit set by r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules.
- This inherent power is limited to corrections that ensure final orders reflect the court's actual intention; it is not a vehicle for revisiting substantive decisions.
- Where a sequence was omitted from re-sentencing orders solely because supporting documentation was absent from the appeal books, that omission qualifies as an accidental slip amenable to correction.
- Sufficient information, once obtained from the District Court file, allowed the court to apply its original sentencing framework and categorise the omitted offence without conducting a fresh sentencing exercise.
- The decision reinforces the principle established in R v Brett Andrew Green that appellate courts retain residual power to correct their own administrative errors even after formal correction windows have closed.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Criminal Appeal Rules, r 50C
Cases
- Yeonata v R [2012] NSWCCA 211
- R v Brett Andrew Green [2011] NSWCCA 71