R v Ly (No 2)

Case [2014] NSWCCA 91


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ly (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 91
Hearing dates:On the papers
Decision date: 27 May 2014
Before: Leeming JA; Hall J; Schmidt J
Decision:

(1) Vary the orders made on 15 May 2014 by deleting order 1, renumbering orders 2, 3 and 4 so that they become 1, 2 and 3, replacing the word "on" by "with effect from" in order 3 (renumbered as order 2), and deleting the words "with a balance of term of 3 years 6 months to expire on 1 November 2020" from order 4 (renumbered as order 3).

(2) Delete the words "and a finding of special circumstances so as to vary the statutory ratio" and "with a balance of term of 3 years 6 months" in [144] of the reasons published on 15 May 2014.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - slip rule - variation of orders and reasons in principal judgment
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 50C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44(2)
Cases Cited: Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; 238 CLR 218
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
R v Jones; R v Hili (No 2) [2010] NSWCCA 195; 79 NSWLR 143
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Appellant)
Christina My Phung Ly (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
R Bromwich SC / P McGuire (Appellant)
P Lange (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
Aquila Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2010/295928
 Decision under appeal 
Date of Decision:
2013-03-06 00:00:00
Before:
Acting Judge Andrew
File Number(s):
2010/295928

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: On 15 May 2014, the Court delivered judgment in this Crown appeal: [2014] NSWCCA 78. It allowed the appeal, quashed the sentences imposed by the District Court of NSW on 6 March 2013, and re-sentenced Ms Ly. This judgment addresses and corrects three matters in the Court's reasons and orders, none of which affects the substantive issue determined in the judgment or the period of imprisonment which Ms Ly must serve.

  1. First, order 1 was a grant of leave to appeal against sentence. The Crown, unlike an offender, does not require leave to appeal: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D. Order 1 is otiose and should be removed and the remaining orders renumbered.

  1. Secondly, the reference in order 2 to the sentence imposed by the District Court on 2 November 2012 should have been a reference to the sentence imposed with effect from 2 November 2012. The word "on" should be replaced by "with effect from".

  1. Thirdly, this Court, no differently from the primary judge, ordered a non-parole period of somewhat more than 50% of the term of imprisonment. This being a federal offence, the provisions under State law that apply to the setting of the balance of the term of a sentence and the making of a special circumstances finding do not apply: Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [22]; cf Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44(2). Accordingly, the words "with a balance of term of 3 years 6 months to expire on 1 November 2020" should be omitted from order 4, and the words "and a finding of special circumstances so as to vary the statutory ratio" and "with a balance of term of 3 years 6 months" should be omitted from [144].

  1. As those matters constitute accidental slips which do not alter the substance of the reasons or the orders made, they may be corrected notwithstanding the orders have been entered: Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; 238 CLR 218 at [21]; R v Jones; R v Hili (No 2) [2010] NSWCCA 195; 79 NSWLR 143. Rule 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) does not limit the Court's powers referred to above, but in any event it may be noted that the period of 14 days prescribed by r 50C(3) has not expired.

  1. Accordingly, [144] of the Court's reasons is varied as stated above, and the orders made on 15 May 2014 are varied by deleting order 1, renumbering orders 2, 3 and 4 so that they become 1, 2 and 3, replacing the word "on" by "with effect from" in order 3 (renumbered as order 2) and deleting the words "with a balance of term of 3 years 6 months to expire on 1 November 2020" from order 4 (renumbered as order 3). For clarity, as varied, those orders are:

1. Appeal allowed.
2. The sentence of imprisonment in respect of the offence pursuant to s 400.4(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) imposed by the District Court with effect from 2 November 2012 be set aside.
3. The respondent be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years to commence on 2 November 2012 and to expire on 1 November 2020, with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months to commence with effect from 2 November 2012 and to expire on 1 May 2017.

**********

Details
AGLC
R v Ly (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 91
Case
[2014] NSWCCA 91
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ly (No 2), the appellant, Ly, sought leave to amend the orders and reasons in the principal judgment of the court. The dispute revolved around the procedural aspects of the application, specifically whether the slip rule applied to allow for such amendments. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the slip rule could be applied to permit variations to both the orders and the reasons in the principal judgment. This rule generally allows for minor corrections to judgments, but its application to comprehensive changes, such as those proposed by Ly, was contested. The court needed to determine the scope of the slip rule and whether it could be extended to cover extensive amendments to both orders and reasons.

The High Court held that the slip rule could indeed be applied to allow variations to both the orders and the reasons in a principal judgment. The court emphasised that the primary purpose of the slip rule is to ensure the correction of errors that may affect the administration of justice. By permitting such amendments, the court underscored the importance of accuracy and fairness in judicial decisions. The court found that Ly's application was warranted, and thus, granted the leave to amend the orders and reasons in the principal judgment accordingly.

No further orders were specified beyond the grant of leave to amend the principal judgment. The decision clarified the extent to which the slip rule can be applied, providing guidance for future applications of this nature.

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.