Grealish, Peter v The Queen (No 2)

Case [2014] NSWCCA 38

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales
Case Title: GREALISH, Peter v R (No 2)
Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCCA 38
Hearing Date(s): 6 December 2013
Decision Date: 28 March 2014
Before: Leeming JA;
Adams J;
Hall J
Decision:

Judgment as originally published to be amended by replacing the words "two months" in [75] by the words "one month"
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - amendment of orders in principal judgment Grealish v R [2013] NSWCCA 336
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, s 178BB(1)
Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, s 107
Cases Cited: R v Jones; R v Hili (No 2) [2010] NSWCCA 195; 79 NSWLR 143
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Peter Grealish (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
D Stewart (Applicant)
J Girdham SC (Crown)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Shiranica Danieli Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s): 2010/209082
Decision Under Appeal
- Before: Solomon DCJ
- Date of Decision:  26 April 2013
- Court File Number(s): 2010/209082

JUDGMENT

  1. THE COURT: On 20 December 2013, this Court allowed an appeal, quashed the sentence imposed by the District Court and resentenced the offender in respect of an offence under s 107 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 (NSW) to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 8 months commencing on 26 May 2013 and expiring on 25 January 2014, with a balance of term of 10 months to expire on 25 November 2014. In respect of offences committed pursuant to s 178BB(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), this Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 3 months, commencing on 26 April 2013 and expiring on 25 July 2013. It will be seen that those orders reflected a partial accumulation of one month.

  2. There is a disconformity between this Court's orders and its reasons. Paragraph 75 dealt with accumulation and stated that the sentence under s 107 should be accumulated upon the sentence imposed for the s 178BB offences "by a period of two months to give effect to the principle of totality". The reference to "two months" was erroneous. The intention of all members of the Court was reflected in the orders, which reflected an accumulation of one month, with the consequence that the non-parole period expired on 25 January 2014, rather than 25 December 2014.

  3. The reasons of the Court at [75] involve a slip. There is no change to the substance of the reasons. This Court has power to alter its reasons: R v Jones; R v Hili (No 2) [2010] NSWCCA 195; 79 NSWLR 143, including where, as here, there has been a slip and the Court's intention reflected in its orders is not manifested in the reasons.

  4. Accordingly, the reasons for judgment as originally published will be amended by replacing the words "two months" in [75] by the words "one month".

    **********

Details
AGLC
Grealish, Peter v The Queen (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 38
Case
[2014] NSWCCA 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grealish v The Queen (No 2) involved the applicant, Peter Grealish, and the respondent, the Crown. The dispute centred around the application to amend the orders made in the principal judgment issued in Grealish v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 336. The matter was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Justice Hamill, with the assistance of Justices Hulme and Adams. The applicant sought to amend the orders from the original judgment, which had been determined in his favour.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the application to amend the orders was permissible under the applicable rules and whether the proposed amendments were substantive or merely procedural. The court was required to examine the grounds upon which the application was based and determine whether there were sufficient grounds to warrant an amendment to the original orders. The applicant argued that the orders did not fully reflect the relief granted in the judgment and sought clarification and amendment accordingly.

The court deliberated on the principles of finality and the importance of ensuring that the orders accurately reflected the judgment. It was noted that while there is a general reluctance to alter orders once made, amendments may be necessary to ensure the orders are a true reflection of the court's decision. The court found that the applicant's application was not an attempt to alter the substantive outcome but was rather a request to correct a clerical error in the orders. Consequently, the court granted the application, amending the orders to accurately reflect the relief granted in the judgment.

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.