Citation: R v Botrus (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1642
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 October 2020
Judge(s): Walton J
Background
This decision arose in the context of a criminal trial before Walton J. The Court had earlier delivered reasons in R v Botrus (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1449, which recorded a ruling made on 16 September 2020 during the course of proceedings concerning the then accused.
Botrus (No 4) addressed a ruling on a "further alternative direction" sought by the then accused. Upon reviewing the published judgment, the Court identified that an administrative error had resulted in one of the four reasons for the ruling being omitted from the published text.
This decision, Botrus (No 5), was delivered solely to correct that omission and ensure the published record accurately reflected the reasons as they had been intended.
Legal Issues
- Whether the published reasons in Botrus (No 4) accurately reflected the Court's full reasoning as delivered
- What the omitted fourth reason stated, and how the published judgment should be corrected to include it
Decision
On reviewing Botrus (No 4), the Court identified that the fourth of four reasons relating to the "further alternative direction" had not been included in the published judgment. The omission was purely administrative in nature, not a change in reasoning.
The missing reason was that the proposed further alternative direction would, in the context of the case, have been unnecessary and confusing. The Court cited Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 in support of that conclusion, noting that the full citation had already been provided in Botrus (No 4).
The Court varied the reasons in Botrus (No 4) by inserting this fourth reason at paragraph [51]. The previously final paragraph, which had been introduced by the word "Lastly," retained that introductory word.
Orders Made
No formal orders were made in this decision. The Court varied the previously published reasons in Botrus (No 4) by adding the omitted fourth reason at paragraph [51].
Key Takeaways
- Courts retain the ability to correct administrative errors in published judgments where the published text does not reflect the reasons as intended.
- The correction in this case was confined to inserting a previously omitted reason; it did not alter or reverse any substantive conclusion in the earlier decision.
- The omitted reason confirmed that a "further alternative direction" sought by the then accused would have been unnecessary and confusing in the context of the trial, applying Shepherd v The Queen.
- Publication restrictions on the judgment were subsequently removed on 9 March 2021, as noted in the amendment record.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases
- R v Botrus (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1449
- Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573