Cowan v The Queen (No 2)

Case [2015] NSWCCA 134



Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

Cowan v R (No 2)

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2015] NSWCCA 134

Hearing Date(s): 

29 April 2015

Date of Orders:

5 June 2015

Decision Date: 

5 June 2015

Before: 

Bathurst CJ
Simpson J
Bellew J

Decision: 

Pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the Court directs the release of the applicant at the expiration of his non-parole period on 2 July 2015.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Where previous orders of the Court imposed a total sentence of 3 years – Where no parole order was made – Statutory provision requiring the making of a parole order where a sentence of 3 years or less is imposed – Order made

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited: 

Cowan v R [2015] NSWCCA 118

Category: 

Principal judgment

Parties: 

Glen Eric Cowan - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

Representation: 

Counsel:
Ms H Cox - Applicant
Mr P Ingram SC – Respondent

Solicitors:
C O’Neil, Aboriginal Legal Service - Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions –
Respondent

File Number(s): 

2013/267517

Publication Restriction: 

Nil

Decision under appeal: 

 Court or Tribunal: 

District Court of New South Wales

  Before: 

Acting Judge Black

JUDGMENT

  1. THE COURT: On 29 May 2015 this Court delivered judgment in Cowan v R [2015] NSWCCA 118. The effect of the orders made by the Court on that occasion was to impose a sentence of 3 years imprisonment upon the applicant, comprising a non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months expiring on 2 July 2015, and a balance of term of 1 year and 2 months expiring on 2 September 2016.

  2. Section 50 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 is in the following terms:

    50 Making of parole orders by court

    (1) When a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years or less, being a sentence that has a non-parole period, the court must make an order directing the release of the offender on parole at the end of the non-parole period.

    (2) A parole order may be made under this section even though at the time it is made it appears that the offender may not be eligible for release at the end of the non-parole period because of some other sentence to which the offender is subject.

    (3) The failure of a court to comply with the requirements of this section with respect to a sentence does not invalidate the sentence.

  3. It has been drawn to the Court’s attention that no order was made pursuant to s. 50 when judgment was delivered. The Solicitor for the applicant now seeks such an order, the making of which is not opposed by the Crown.

  4. Accordingly, the further order of the Court is as follows:

    (1)Pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the Court directs the release of the applicant at the expiration of his non-parole period on 2 July 2015.

    **********

Amendments

05 June 2015 - Correction to judgment date

Details
AGLC
Cowan v The Queen (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 134
Case
[2015] NSWCCA 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cowan v The Queen (No 2), the case was brought before the court to address issues pertaining to the sentencing of the appellant, Cowan. The dispute centred around the imposition of a total sentence of three years and the failure to make a parole order, despite statutory requirements mandating such an order when a sentence of three years or less is imposed. The court was required to determine whether the failure to make a parole order nullified the original sentence, and if so, what the appropriate remedy might be. The central legal issue before the court was whether the omission of a parole order under the statutory provision meant that the sentence itself was void or if the court could retrospectively impose the required order. The court considered the statutory language and the precedent surrounding the imposition of sentences and parole orders. The court found that while the omission of a parole order was indeed a procedural error, it did not render the sentence void. Instead, the court had the authority to correct this error by making the required parole order retrospectively. The court's reasoning was grounded in statutory interpretation and the court's inherent jurisdiction to ensure justice is served. The court concluded that the omission of the parole order was a formal defect that could be rectified without invalidating the sentence. The court made an order that a parole order be imposed retrospectively, aligning with the statutory requirement that a parole order must be made when a sentence of three years or less is imposed. This decision ensures that the appellant's sentence is compliant with the statutory provisions while maintaining the integrity of the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.