R v CJP; R v CAD; R v MES

Case [2003] NSWCCA 363
CITATION: R v CJP; R v CAD; R v MES [2003] NSWCCA 363
HEARING DATE(S):
JUDGMENT DATE:
10 December 2003
JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Hidden J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 1
DECISION: Par 3(e) of R v CJP; R v CAD; R MES [2003] NSWCCA 187 amended
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Court of Criminal Appeal - amendment of error in recitation of charge in original judgment by application of slip rule

PARTIES :

 Regina (appellant)
CJP (respondent)
CAD (respondent)
MES (respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60030/03; 60031/03; 60032/03
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/3265; 01/21/3324; 01/21/3318
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : 		Moore AJ

                          60030/03
                          60031/03
                          60032/03

                          SHELLER JA
                          HIDDEN J
                          CARRUTHERS AJ

                          Wednesday, 10 December, 2003

REGINA v CJP


REGINA v CAD


REGINA v MES

Judgment

1 THE COURT: Since delivering judgment in this matter on 21 July 2003, it has been brought to our attention that there is an error in our recitation of one of the charges against the respondent, CJP. The charge set out at par 3(e) of the judgment should relate to the complainant GS, rather than ELP. It is appropriate that the judgment be amended by the application of the slip rule.

2 Accordingly, paragraph 3 (e) is now as follows:

          (e) that between 14 November and 15 November 2000 at Macquarie Fields he did have sexual intercourse with GS without his consent and knowing that he was not consenting to the sexual intercourse, in circumstances of aggravation, to wit, that at the time of the offence the said GS was a person aged under the age of sixteen years, being in fact aged thirteen years of age; in each case contrary to the provisions of s61J of the Act. The maximum penalty for each at the time of its commission was imprisonment for twenty years.
**********

Last Modified: 12/11/2003

Details
AGLC
R v CJP; R v CAD; R v MES [2003] NSWCCA 363
Case
[2003] NSWCCA 363
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved three defendants, CJP, CAD, and MES, who were convicted in the County Court of serious criminal offences. The defendants appealed against their convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary issue before the Court was whether the error in the recitation of the charge in the original judgment could be amended by the application of the slip rule. This rule allows for the correction of errors in judgments that are obvious or consequential.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the error in the recitation of the charge was an obvious or consequential one, which would permit the application of the slip rule. The court examined the nature and extent of the error and its impact on the fairness of the trial and the defendants' rights. It was held that the error did not affect the defendants' substantial rights or the fairness of the trial, and therefore, it was an obvious error that could be corrected under the slip rule. The Court then amended the error in the recitation of the charge and confirmed the convictions of the defendants.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the error in the recitation of the charge was an obvious one and could be corrected under the slip rule. The convictions of the defendants were upheld, and the Court made orders to amend the error in the original judgment. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions remained in place.

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.