R v Palmer - [2023] ACTCA 24

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	R v Palmer
Citation:	[2023] ACTCA 24
Hearing Date:	5 June 2023
Decision Date:	5 June 2023
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [29]
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND ORDERS – Amendment to orders of the Court of Appeal pursuant to r 6906 – where orders of the court erroneously recorded on bench sheet – inconsistency between orders recorded in published judgment and orders recorded on bench sheet – narrative text from judgment erroneously recorded as redundant and inaccurate orders on bench sheet – bench sheet was subsequently amended without explanation – orders made to amend the documents recording terms of orders so as to reflect the orders that were pronounced and the intention of the court
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6906
Cases Cited:	Monaghan v Australian Capital Territory(No 2) [2016] ACTSC 352 Wickey v The Queen (No 2) [2012] ACTCA 51
Parties:	The Queen ( Appellant) Paul Arthur Palmer ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel E Roff ( Appellant) J Cooper ( Respondent)
Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions ( Appellant) Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT ( Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 9 of 2019
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Elkaim J Date of Decision: 7 February 2019 Case Title: R v Nicholas; R v Palmer Citation: [2019] ACTSC 16

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․Accurate recording of court orders is fundamental to the administration of justice. The accurate documentation of the orders made by a judge in court is a necessary first step towards the perfection of those orders. An obvious example of the importance of the accurate recording of the orders of the court is where those orders record sentences of imprisonment. Warrants authorising the imprisonment of a person must be drawn up in order to implement the sentence imposed by orders of the court. The accurate recording of those orders is therefore fundamental to the implementation of the sentence imposed and thereby of fundamental importance to the liberty of the affected person.
2․When making and documenting orders of the court it must be borne in mind that those orders will often be required to be implemented by persons who only have before them the terms of the orders. They will not necessarily be aware of the reasons for the orders or background information in relation to the dispute that resulted in the making of those orders. As a consequence, in drafting and documenting orders it is important to ensure that they may be read and understood on their own terms without necessarily requiring background knowledge as to the circumstances of their making or an examination of the reasons that they were made. Once again, an example which illustrates this is a sentence of imprisonment. Sentences of imprisonment are administered by the executive. Arms of the executive such as the Sentence Administration Board rely on the terms of the sentence of imprisonment in order to make decisions about the custody of…

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 Palmer

Details

AGLC: R v Palmer [2023] ACTCA 24
Case: [2023] ACTCA 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory considered an application to amend court orders concerning the resentencing of Paul Arthur Palmer. The dispute arose from inconsistencies between the orders pronounced by the Court of Appeal and the subsequent documentation of those orders on bench sheets and perfected court documents, including warrants of imprisonment. The court was tasked with determining how to rectify these discrepancies to accurately reflect the original sentencing intention.

The central legal issue was the power of the court to amend its own orders to correct errors in recording, particularly when those errors stemmed from the erroneous inclusion of narrative text as formal orders and subsequent flawed attempts to reconcile inconsistencies. The court was required to consider the implications of these errors on the administration of justice and the liberty of the individual, as well as the appropriate legal basis for making such amendments.

The court reasoned that accurate recording of orders is fundamental to the administration of justice, especially when dealing with sentences of imprisonment. It identified that the errors originated from the inclusion of paragraph [138] of the published reasons, which contained narrative explanations rather than formal orders, as an order of the court. This erroneous order, along with subsequent amendments made without clear justification or procedural regularity, led to significant inconsistencies in the recorded sentences. The court found that these errors fell within the scope of rule 6906 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), which permits amendments to correct accidental inclusions or omissions. The court decided to amend the documents to reflect the orders pronounced on 5 December 2019, specifically by correcting the dates in the erroneous order to align with the actual start date of the sentence on count 1 and deleting the redundant total period of imprisonment order, thereby restoring the intended sentence of nine years and six months.

Orders