Humphries v The Queen; Ponfield v The Queen (No. 2)

Case [2016] NSWCCA 91


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Humphries v R; Ponfield v R (No. 2) [2016] NSWCCA 91
Hearing dates:13 May 2016
Decision date: 16 May 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Davies J at [1]
Beech-Jones J [1]
Decision:

(1) The reference at [5] in the principal judgment to “18 January 2021” is amended to read “18 April 2021”;

 

(2) The reference at [7] in the principal judgment to “18 June 2017” is amended to read”18 March 2017”;

 

(3) Order (3) at [73] and in the form of the sentence ordered by the Court on 13 May 2016 is amended to read:

 

In lieu, sentence the Appellant Mark Humphries to a sentence for each count comprising 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. The sentences are to be served concurrently.

 (4) The orders republished on 16 May 2016 stand as a consolidated statement of the orders of the Court.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – errors in judgment – correction pursuant to r 50C
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Rules 1952 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Humphries v R; Ponfield v R [2016] NSWCCA 86
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Mark Wayne Humphries (Applicant)
Wade Allan Ponfied (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
P Segal (for the Applicant Humphries)
W Hunt & J Paingakulam (for the Applicant Ponfield)
H Baker (Crown)

  Solicitors:
Brock Partners (for the Applicant Humphries)
Legal Aid NSW (for the Applicant Ponfield)
Solicitor of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):2013/181950 & 2013/187215
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
15 September 2014
Before:
Arnott DCJ
File Number(s):
2013/181950 & 2013/187215

Judgment of the COURT

  1. After judgment was delivered on this appeal on 13 May 2016 the solicitor for the DPP drew the Court‘s attention to two apparent errors in the judgment: Humphriesv R; Ponfield v R [2016] NSWCCA 86 (the principal judgment).

  2. The first error at [7] was a reference to the expiry date for the sentence at first instance in respect of Mr Ponfield as 18 June 2017. The correct expiry date for the non-parole period was 18 March 2017.

  3. The second error was contained in order (3) that appeared at appeared at [73] and in the orders made by the Court. That order made reference to a non-parole period of three years six months commencing 19 January and expiring 18 October 2018.

  4. At [72] the judgment of Davies and Beech-Jones JJ (with whom Hoeben CJ at CL agreed) said:

Having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending, Mr Humphries’ subjective matters and the sentences imposed on Mr Ponfield and Mr Wilson, we consider that the appropriate sentence for Mr Humphries for each of the offences is a non-parole period of three years and 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.

  1. The Court’s intention, as appears from that passage, was that Mr Humphries should be sentenced to a non-parole period of three years and nine months commencing 19 January 2015 and expiring 18 October 2018. The sentence was incorrectly recorded at [73] and subsequently in the orders made by the Court. The error should be corrected to reflect the Court’s intention. Order (3) should read:

(3)   In lieu, sentence the Appellant Mark Humphries to a sentence for each count comprising 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. The sentences are to be served concurrently.

  1. The Court notes a further error in the principal judgment at [5]. The reference to the sentence imposed by Judge Arnott should have been to an additional term of two years and six months expiring 18 April 2021 instead of 18 January 2021.

  2. Rule 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1952 (NSW) empowers the Court to correct the errors.

  3. An amended judgment correcting the three errors will be published.

  4. The orders of the Court are:

  1. The reference at [5] in the principal judgment to “18 January 2021” is amended to read “18 April 2021”;

  2. The reference at [7] in the principal judgment to “18 June 2017” is amended to read ”18 March 2017”;

  3. Order (3) at [73] and in the form of the sentence ordered by the Court on 13 May 2016 is amended to read:

In lieu, sentence the Appellant Mark Humphries to a sentence for each count comprising 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. The sentences are to be served concurrently.

  1. The orders republished on 16 May 2016 stand as a consolidated statement of the orders of the Court.

**********

Details
AGLC
Humphries v The Queen; Ponfield v The Queen (No. 2) [2016] NSWCCA 91
Case
[2016] NSWCCA 91
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Humphries v The Queen; Ponfield v The Queen, the two appellants sought to appeal against their convictions for various criminal offences, raising issues pertaining to errors in judgment by the trial judge. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's errors warranted a correction under the relevant rules of court. The appellants contended that the trial judge's misdirections on certain legal principles and evidential matters were so significant that they likely affected the outcome of the trial. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that any errors were either trivial or did not impact the verdicts.

The central legal issues before the court involved the scope and application of rule 50C of the High Court Rules, which allows for corrections to judgments in specific circumstances. The court had to assess whether the alleged errors were of a nature that warranted intervention under this rule. The appellants' counsel argued that the trial judge's errors were material and substantial, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice. The Crown's position was that the errors did not meet the threshold required for correction under the rule. The court's task was to determine the correct interpretation of the rule and apply it to the facts of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the specific errors identified by the appellants and evaluated their impact on the trial's outcome. The court found that while some of the trial judge's misdirections were indeed significant, they did not reach the level of seriousness necessary to warrant a correction under rule 50C. The court emphasised that the rule was not intended to be a general mechanism for reviewing trial judge errors but was reserved for cases where the errors were so substantial that they undermined the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals, holding that the errors did not justify a correction of the judgments. The court further clarified the criteria for applying rule 50C, providing guidance for future cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.