Legal Research
Cases
R v Green and Quinn

R v Green and Quinn

Case [2011] NSWCCA 71 15 April 2011

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v GREEN AND QUINN [2011] NSWCCA 71
Hearing dates: 11 March 2011
Decision date: 15 April 2011
Before: ALLSOP P [1]
McCLELLAN CJ AT CL
RS HULME J LATHAM J [8]
McCALLUM J [47]
Decision:
To the extent that the Crown has made an application under Rule 50C, dismiss the application and otherwise decline to vary or correct the orders of the Court and the sentences imposed on 17 December 2010.

Catchwords: Judgment - orders - error - correction - slip rule
Legislation Cited: Rule 50C Criminal Appeal Rules
Cases Cited: Re Swire (1885) 30 Ch D 239
Milson v Carter (1893) AC 638
R v Michael (1976) QB 414
L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [No 2] [1982] HCA 59; 151 CLR 590 at 594-595
De Zylva (1988) 38 A Crim R 207
R v Carrion [2002] NSWCCA 21; 128 A Crim R 29 at 31-36 [14]-[33]
R v A.N. (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 218; 66 NSWLR 523 at 529-530 at [37]-[42]
Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; 238 CLR 218 at 224-225 [21]
R v Jones and Hili (No 2) [2010] NSWCCA 195 at [12], [26], [41]
Ho v DPP (1995) 37 NSWLR 393 at 401
Kauwenberghs v R [2009] NSWCCA 201
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Brett Andrew Green
Shane Darrin Quinn
Representation: Counsel:
D Arnott SC with P Leask (Crown)
T Game SC with D Barrow (Green)
Ms G Bashir (Quinn)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh Solicitor for DPP
S O'Connor Solicitor Legal Aid Commission NSW

File Number(s): 2009/2591004; 2009/4254007
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2009-08-14 00:00:00

Before:

Boulton ADCJ

JUDGMENT

ALLSOP P : A number of important issues of this Court's power arose on the arguments put before the Court.

I do not propose to deal with those questions of power in the circumstances where I can deal with the matter by reference to discretion. By taking this course, I should not be taken, one way or the other, to have expressed any view or doubt about the existence of power, its source or scope. The power arises either under the Criminal Appeal Rules , Rule 50C or the "slip rule" as an implied power of the Court. If there is no power, then no occasion for the exercise of any discretion and its consideration would arise. Given that I would not exercise the discretion to change the orders made and sentences passed and imposed on 17 December 2010, it is sufficient if I explain my reasons for that and to identify the order that I would make.

I have read the reasons in draft of McCallum J. I agree with them. Any power of correction, if it exists, should not be exercised here. Apart from the fact that Mr Green and Mr Quinn have not received the sentences agreed upon by the majority as reflected in [143] of their reasons, no public purpose…

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.

Continue reading R v Green and Quinn

Details

AGLC: R v Green and Quinn [2011] NSWCCA 71
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 71
Decision Date: 15 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of R v Green and Quinn, the defendants appealed against their conviction for various drug-related offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendants contended that there was a clerical error in the recording of their convictions, which required correction under the slip rule. They argued that the error rendered their convictions invalid.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the clerical error in the recording of the defendants' convictions was significant enough to warrant correction under the slip rule. The slip rule, which is a principle of statutory interpretation, allows for corrections of clerical errors in judgments, orders, or other legal documents. The defendants argued that the error was a material one, as it misstated the date of their convictions, and thus it should be corrected.

The court considered the nature and extent of the error and determined that it did indeed amount to a clerical error. The court found that the error did not affect the substance of the convictions or the defendants' rights, and therefore, it was appropriate to correct the error under the slip rule. The court emphasised that the slip rule is a tool to ensure that legal documents accurately reflect the intentions of the court and should be applied where the error is purely clerical and does not alter the outcome of the case. The court allowed the appeal, corrected the error, and affirmed the convictions.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the correction of the clerical error. The court's decision highlights the importance of accurately recording legal documents and the role of the slip rule in ensuring that such documents reflect the true intentions of the court.

Orders