Citation: Reddy v R (No 2) [2018] NSWCCA 234
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 17 October 2018
Judges: Bathurst CJ; Fullerton J; Campbell J
Background
This decision is a short supplementary judgment following the Court of Criminal Appeal's substantive decision in Reddy v R, handed down on 3 October 2018. In that earlier decision, the Court had backdated the commencement of the applicant's sentence to give credit for half the time the applicant had spent in pre-trial residential rehabilitation.
After the orders were pronounced, the Court identified a patent arithmetic error in Campbell J's reasoning. The Court had found the relevant rehabilitation period to be 5 months, but the orders reflected a backdating of only 4 months. The result was that the commencement date was stated as 8 November 2016 rather than the correct date of 8 October 2016.
The error had a direct practical consequence: the applicant's earliest parole eligibility date was recorded as 7 November 2018, one month later than the correctly calculated date of 7 October 2018.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Court had power to correct the arithmetic error in its orders without a motion from either party.
- Whether the slip rule permitted correction of this kind of error on the Court's own initiative.
Decision
The Court confirmed it holds power under the slip rule to correct its own orders without any application from the parties. Rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), together with rule 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1970 (NSW), authorises such a correction on the Court's own motion. The Court cited the High Court decisions in Achurch v The Queen and Burrell v The Queen in support of that power.
The Court was satisfied that correcting the error served the interests of justice. Because the error was patent and arose from a simple miscalculation, the Court did not consider it necessary to hear further from the parties before acting. The Crown could suffer no injustice from the correction of an obvious arithmetic mistake.
The Court also noted that, because the applicant's sentence exceeded three years (being 3 years and 5 months), the applicant's release on parole would depend on the making of a parole order by the Parole Authority under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), rather than automatic release.
Orders Made
- Order 3 pronounced on 3 October 2018 was amended by substituting "October" for "November" wherever the latter appeared in that order.
- In Order 3(a), "March" was substituted for "April."
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed it may correct a patent arithmetic error in its own orders under the slip rule and rule 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1970 (NSW), acting on its own motion without any application from the parties.
- Rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) applies to the Court of Criminal Appeal's orders, providing the procedural vehicle for slip rule corrections in criminal appellate proceedings.
- Where an error is obvious and no injustice can flow to the Crown from its correction, the Court held that it is unnecessary to invite further submissions before amending the orders.
- A sentence exceeding three years in length does not result in automatic parole release; under sections 127 and 135 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), release depends on a formal parole order made by the Parole Authority.
- Even a one-month miscalculation in a sentence commencement date can have immediate and material consequences for a prisoner's parole eligibility, making accuracy in arithmetic central to the integrity of sentencing orders.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 127, 135
- Criminal Appeal Rules 1970 (NSW), r 50C
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.17
Cases:
- Achurch v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 141; [2014] HCA 10
- Burrell v The Queen (2008) 238 CLR 218; [2008] HCA 34