Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Hidden J at [2]; Adams J at [3]
Decision:
Application dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – application under r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) – nature of the application – not rehearing of appeal – matters capable of correction
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Miller v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 205
Case
[2015] NSWCCA 205
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Miller applied to the court for an order under rule 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), seeking a correction to his conviction and sentence. The application was not a rehearing of the appeal, but rather a request to correct an error in the record of the original decision. The error related to the sentence imposed by the court, which was not accurately reflected in the original record. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the error did not impact the conviction or sentence and that the application was essentially a rehearing of the appeal.
The court examined whether the error was capable of being corrected under rule 50C, which allows for corrections to be made to the record of a decision where there is a clerical or typographical error, or an error arising from an oversight or omission. The court found that the error in this case was not a clerical or typographical error, but rather an error arising from an oversight or omission. The court noted that the error did not impact the conviction or sentence, and that the application was essentially a rehearing of the appeal. However, the court found that the error was capable of being corrected under rule 50C, as it was an error arising from an oversight or omission that could be corrected without impacting the conviction or sentence.
The court granted the application and ordered that the record of the original decision be corrected to accurately reflect the sentence imposed by the court. The court noted that the correction was not a rehearing of the appeal, but rather a correction to the record of the original decision. The court also noted that the correction did not impact the conviction or sentence, and that the application was not an attempt to re-litigate the merits of the appeal. The court ordered that the correction be made to the record of the original decision, and that a certified copy of the corrected record be provided to the parties.