R v Dodd

Counsel for Nicky Bryan Dodd sought correction of an error in his sentence, which involved the judge attributing his brother Adam Dodd’s criminal history to Nicky Dodd, thereby increasing the starting point of his sentence by two months. The court had previously expressed doubts about its jurisdiction to correct the sentencing error. However, upon considering authorities and academic commentary on the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the court concluded that its inherent jurisdiction did permit the correction of the error. The court found that the inherent jurisdiction was broad enough to allow the court to correct sentencing irregularities, as long as any order did not conflict with any statutory or regulatory provision. The court also found that the principles of finality and functus officio were not an obstacle to using the inherent jurisdiction to correct irregularities. The court gave the parties an opportunity to address the court on the exercise of this power before taking any further steps to correct the irregularity in Nicky Dodd’s sentence.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the court had the jurisdiction to correct the sentencing error, and if so, whether it was appropriate to exercise that jurisdiction in this case. The court found that the inherent jurisdiction did permit the correction of the error, and that it was appropriate to give the parties an opportunity to address the court on the exercise of this power before taking any further steps. The court held that the inherent jurisdiction provides authority to recall and correct irregularity in a sentencing decision, and that the parties should be given an opportunity to address the appropriateness of correcting the irregularity in this case.