AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Court of Criminal Appeal 16 May 2016

Humphries v R; Ponfield v R (No. 2)

[2016] NSWCCA 91

Other
CRIMINAL LAW APPEAL ERRORS IN JUDGMENT CORRECTION PURSUANT TO R 50C

Citation: Humphries v R; Ponfield v R (No. 2) [2016] NSWCCA 91
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 16 May 2016
Judge(s): Hoeben CJ at CL, Davies J, Beech-Jones J

Background

This decision is a brief procedural judgment arising from errors identified in the Court of Criminal Appeal's principal judgment, delivered just three days earlier on 13 May 2016 (Humphries v R; Ponfield v R [2016] NSWCCA 86). That principal judgment concerned appeals against sentence by two appellants, Mark Humphries and Mr Ponfield, following convictions at first instance.

After the principal judgment was delivered, the solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions drew the Court's attention to three errors in the judgment text, including an incorrect expiry date in the summary of Mr Ponfield's sentence and an incorrectly recorded non-parole period in the orders made for Mr Humphries.

The Court convened to address those errors and to correct the judgment and orders accordingly.

  • Whether the Court had power to correct errors in its own judgment and orders after delivery
  • What corrections were required to bring the judgment and orders into conformity with the Court's actual intention

Decision

The Court identified three discrete errors in the principal judgment. First, at paragraph [5], the expiry date of an additional term in the sentence imposed at first instance on one of the appellants was recorded as 18 January 2021, when the correct date was 18 April 2021. Second, at paragraph [7], the expiry date for Mr Ponfield's non-parole period was stated as 18 June 2017, when the correct date was 18 March 2017.

The third and most significant error appeared in Order (3) at paragraph [73] and in the formal orders made on 13 May 2016. That order described Mr Humphries' non-parole period as three years six months, whereas the reasoning at paragraph [72] of the principal judgment made plain the Court's intention was to impose a non-parole period of three years and nine months commencing 19 January 2015 and expiring 18 October 2018.

The Court was satisfied that r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1952 (NSW) provided the necessary power to correct these errors. An amended judgment correcting all three errors was ordered to be published, and the republished orders of 16 May 2016 were stated to stand as the consolidated statement of the Court's orders.

Orders Made

  • The reference at [5] in the principal judgment to "18 January 2021" is amended to read "18 April 2021"
  • The reference at [7] in the principal judgment to "18 June 2017" is amended to read "18 March 2017"
  • Order (3) at [73] and in the formal orders is amended so that Mr Humphries is sentenced, for each count, to a non-parole period of three years nine months commencing 19 January 2015 and expiring 18 October 2018, with an additional term of two years and three months expiring 18 January 2021, to be served concurrently
  • The orders republished on 16 May 2016 stand as the consolidated statement of the Court's orders

Key Takeaways

  • Rule 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1952 (NSW) empowers the Court of Criminal Appeal to correct errors in its judgments and orders after delivery, including errors in recorded sentence dates and lengths.
  • Three errors were identified in the principal judgment: two incorrect expiry dates and a non-parole period that was recorded as three years six months rather than the intended three years nine months.
  • The correction process was prompted by the DPP's solicitor, illustrating the role prosecution representatives may play in identifying post-delivery errors in appellate courts.
  • An amended judgment was ordered to be published, and the republished orders of 16 May 2016 were designated the authoritative consolidated statement of the Court's orders, superseding those made on 13 May 2016.
  • Where a discrepancy exists between the reasoning in a judgment and the formal orders made, the Court may look to the body of the judgment to establish its true intention when correcting the record.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Appeal Rules 1952 (NSW), r 50C

Cases:
- Humphries v R; Ponfield v R [2016] NSWCCA 86 (the principal judgment)