Norford v The Queen (No 2) - [2020] NSWCCA 175

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Norford v R (No 2) [2020] NSWCCA 175
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 27 July 2020
Decision date: 27 July 2020
Before: Simpson AJA at [1]
Rothman J at [1]
Bellew J at [1]
Decision:
(1) The orders pronounced by the Court on 27 May 2020 are set aside and the following orders substituted in lieu thereof.
(2) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(3) Appeal allowed.
(4) The sentence imposed in the District Court in respect of the offence contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is quashed.
(5) In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment to date from 31 October 2018 and to expire on 30 July 2020, with an additional term of 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment commencing on 31 July 2020 and expiring on 30 April 2022.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment of orders – Unintended slip – No point of principle

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Akkawi v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 72
Alramadan v R (No 2) [2008] NSWCCA 69
Norford v R [2020] NSWCCA 104

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Timothy John Norford – Applicant
Regina – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
P Coady – Applicant
C Young – Respondent
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW – Applicant
C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) – Respondent

File Number(s): 2018/333824
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

22 July 2019

Before:

Acting Judge Conlon SC

Judgment

THE COURT:

The Court delivered judgment in this matter on 27 May 2020 and made the following orders:[1]
1. Norford v R [2020] NSWCCA 104.

Leave to appeal against sentence granted.

Appeal allowed.

The sentence imposed in the District Court in respect of the offence contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is quashed.

In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment to date from 30 November 2018 and to expire on 29 August 2020, with an additional term of 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment commencing on 30 August 2020 and expiring on 29 May 2022.

On 19 June 2020 the solicitor for the applicant, with the consent of the Crown, wrote to the Registrar of the Court querying whether there was an error in order (4) in terms of the commencement date of the sentence imposed by this Court. The applicant’s solicitor submitted that having regard to the sentence imposed at first instance, and having regard to the reasons for judgment, the commencement date should have been 31 October 2018 and not 30 November 2018. The Crown made no submission to the contrary.
The applicant was originally sentenced in respect of two separate offences. The first was contrary to s 111(2) of the

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Norford v The Queen (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWCCA 175
Decision Date: 27 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Norford v The Queen (No 2) involved the appellant, Norford, appealing against the orders made by the High Court in a previous appeal. The legal dispute revolved around the amendment of those orders, which were initially made due to an unintended error. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the orders should be amended to rectify the unintended slip.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the orders should be amended to reflect the intended outcome and whether there was any point of principle that would prevent such an amendment. The court had to balance the need to correct the error against the potential disruption to the parties and the integrity of the judicial process.

The High Court found that there was no point of principle that would prevent the amendment of the orders to correct the unintended slip. The court reasoned that the amendment was necessary to ensure the orders accurately reflected the intended outcome, and that any disruption caused by the amendment was outweighed by the importance of achieving a correct result. The court further noted that the amendment did not alter the substantive outcome of the case, and therefore did not undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

In light of the above, the High Court ordered that the original orders be amended to correct the unintended slip. The amendment was made to ensure that the orders accurately reflected the intended outcome, and that any disruption caused by the amendment was outweighed by the importance of achieving a correct result. The court further noted that the amendment did not alter the substantive outcome of the case, and therefore did not undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders