Parkinson v Alexander (No 3)
[2017] ACTSC 305
•19 October 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Parkinson v Alexander (No 3) |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 305 |
Submission Date: | 18 October 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 19 October 2017 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. That the order made on 9 October 2017 be amended by omitting “CC2014/5648” and substituting “CC2015/5648”. |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND ORDERS – Amendment – error in order – accidental slip or omission – slip rule – r 6906 of the Court Procedures 2006 (ACT) |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures 2006 (ACT), r 6906 |
Cases Cited: | DJL v The Central Authority [2000] HCA 17; 201 CLR 226 Elson v Ayton [2010] ACTSC 70; 241 FLR 178 |
Parties: | Sarah Jane Parkinson (Appellant) Leesa Alexander (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr K Archer (Appellant) Mr A Williamson (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Kamy Saeedi Law (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | SCA 80 of 2015 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Chief Magistrate Walker Date of Decision: 26 August 2015 Case Title: Alexander v Parkinson Court File Numbers: CC 7497 of 2014 CC 5647 of 2015 CC 5648 of 2015 CC 1910 of 2015 CC 1911 of 2015 CC 1912 of 2015 |
REFSHAUGE J:
On 4 August 2017, I partly upheld an appeal from the ACT Magistrates Court and set aside two convictions that had been entered in that Court: Parkinson v Alexander [2017] ACTSC 201.
I dismissed one of the two charges that had been laid but sought submissions on the other as it was not clear whether there should be a retrial. In the event, I ordered a retrial of that charge: Parkinson v Alexander (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 290.
In the Magistrates Court, each charge is allocated a specific number. The usual form of numbering is to use the prefix “CC” (presumably for “criminal charge”) followed by the year in which the charge was laid, which is followed by a forward slash and the number assigned to the particular charge. This is to be compared to the arrangements in this Court where, while a single file is opened for each indictment, the indictment may include many charges.
Sometimes the charge numbers used for Magistrates Court proceedings are set out slightly differently by, after the prefix “CC”, using the unique identifying number followed by “of [year]”, as appears above.
In this case, when remitting the relevant charge to the Magistrates Court for rehearing, the order I made included the Magistrates Court number, a useful unique identifier for the charge. Thus, the order was:
That the charge of making a false accusation on 21 March 2014 (CC2014/5648) be remitted to the ACT Magistrates Court for retrial before a different Magistrate in accordance with these reasons and the reasons given for upholding the appeal.
The Registry of the Magistrates Court has now drawn my attention to the fact that the charge was actually laid in 2015 and the relevant number should be CC2015/5648. That is certainly how it appeared in the Notice of Appeal: Parkinson v Alexander at [21]. The reference in the order I made is clearly a clerical error.
The order has been made. There is a bench sheet on which it appears. That may be sufficient to give it the finality that prevents the order from being recalled and amended. See Jovanovic v The Queen (1999) 92 FCA 1008; 92 FCR 580 at 592; [59]-[60].
In that event, such an amendment can only be made under r 6906 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). See R v Elphick (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 302 at [9].
Of course, if the order, though orally pronounced and appearing in the document then published and which also contained the reasons, did not constitute its entry into the records of the Court so as to render it unable to be recalled, then I can simply recall it and make the necessary amendment. See DJL v The Central Authority [2000] HCA 17; 201 CLR 226 at 244; [34].
While the amendment may be made on the initiative of the Court, it is desirable that the parties be informed of the proposal to make the amendment and have an opportunity to be heard. See Elson v Ayton [2010] ACTSC 70; 241 FLR 178 at 193; [86].
Neither party expressed any objection or need to make the submissions.
The conditions for making such an amendment have been fulfilled: R v Calvert [2010] ACTSC 80 at [6]; R v Elphick (No 3) at [22].
Accordingly, I will make the necessary amendment.
| I certify that the preceding thirteen [13] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge. Associate: Date: 19 October 2017 |
0
7
1