Corliss v R (No. 2) [2020] NSWCCA 180

Corliss v R (No. 2) [2020] NSWCCA 180

Leave and relief under Rule 50C were refused because the applicant did not identify any slip in the Court's orders, any failure to address a ground of appeal, or any relevant misapprehension of fact or law. Each member of the Court had considered Appeal Ground 3 and the majority rejected it; disagreement with that majority reasoning and a preference for Brereton JA's dissent was an attempt to reargue an unsuccessful appeal, which Rule 50C does not permit. The remaining complaints either misconceived the facts, concerned matters not within Rule 50C, or related to obiter comments which did not affect the dismissal of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal; Application Under R 50 C Criminal Appeal Rules to Set Aside Judgment and Orders / Application for Leave Under Rule 50 C Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 20 April 2020 dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'rule 50 C Criminal Appeal Rules' 'slip Rule' 'jurisdiction to Reconsider Appeal' 'child Sexual Assault Offences' 'historical Sentencing Practices']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'rule 50 C Criminal Appeal Rules' 'slip Rule' 'jurisdiction to Reconsider Appeal' 'child Sexual Assault Offences' 'historical Sentencing Practices']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal; Application Under R 50 C Criminal Appeal Rules to Set Aside Judgment and Orders / Application for Leave Under Rule 50 C Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted under Rule 50C(1A) Criminal Appeal Rules to set aside or vary the Court's orders dismissing the applicant's sentence appeal." "Whether the applicant could invoke the slip rule or Rule 50C because Brereton JA's dissent described an error by the sentencing judge as a slip." 'Whether the Court failed to address Appeal Ground 3 concerning historical sentencing practices.' "Whether alleged errors about the complainant's age, statutory limitation, the victim impact statement, s.6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912, and s.25AA Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 justified relief under Rule 50C." "Whether the applicant's earlier Notice of Motion dated 23 August 2019 should be received and dealt with after the appeal judgment."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave and relief under Rule 50C were refused because the applicant did not identify any slip in the Court's orders, any failure to address a ground of appeal, or any relevant misapprehension of fact or law. Each member of the Court had considered Appeal Ground 3 and the majority rejected it; disagreement with that majority reasoning and a preference for Brereton JA's dissent was an attempt to reargue an unsuccessful appeal, which Rule 50C does not permit. The remaining complaints either misconceived the facts, concerned matters not within Rule 50C, or related to obiter comments which did not affect the dismissal of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 20 April 2020 dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 20 April 2020 dismissed."]