R v Carrion [2002] NSWCCA 21

R v Carrion [2002] NSWCCA 21

Because the orders announced on 26 May 2000 had not been perfected under the Criminal Appeal Rules and were intended to be provisional pending execution of the warrant, the Court had power to reconsider and vary the commencement date of the substituted sentences so as to give effect to its true intention. The respondent was not to be treated as having served the substituted full-time imprisonment while at large, and the original periodic detention order remained on foot and was extended during his failure to report under ss 82 and 89 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. The commencement date was therefore amended to 15 July 2001.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Reconsideration of Whether to Amend the Commencement Date of Substituted Sentences After Judgment Had Been Delivered But Not Perfected
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentences imposed below quashed; respondent resentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment with amended commencement and non-parole dates.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'slip Rule' 'inherent Jurisdiction to Vary Orders' 'perfection of Criminal Appeal Orders' 'commencement of Sentence' 'periodic Detention' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'slip Rule' 'inherent Jurisdiction to Vary Orders' 'perfection of Criminal Appeal Orders' 'commencement of Sentence' 'periodic Detention' 'non Parole Period']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Reconsideration of Whether to Amend the Commencement Date of Substituted Sentences After Judgment Had Been Delivered But Not Perfected

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had power to reopen the matter and amend the commencement date of the substituted sentences to the date on which the respondent was returned to custody.' 'Whether any such power arose from the slip rule, inherent jurisdiction, or the fact that the judgment had not been perfected.' 'Whether the order pronounced on 26 May 2000 had passed into record under the Criminal Appeal Rules.' 'Whether the respondent could be treated as having served the substituted sentence, or the original periodic detention sentence, while he was at large between May 2000 and July 2001.' "Whether ss 82 and 89 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 extended the original periodic detention sentence during the respondent's failure to report."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the orders announced on 26 May 2000 had not been perfected under the Criminal Appeal Rules and were intended to be provisional pending execution of the warrant, the Court had power to reconsider and vary the commencement date of the substituted sentences so as to give effect to its true intention. The respondent was not to be treated as having served the substituted full-time imprisonment while at large, and the original periodic detention order remained on foot and was extended during his failure to report under ss 82 and 89 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. The commencement date was therefore amended to 15 July 2001.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentences imposed below quashed; respondent resentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment with amended commencement and non-parole dates.

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal allowed.' 'Sentences imposed below be quashed.' 'In lieu thereof the Respondent be sentenced, on each count, to imprisonment for 3 years, each to be served concurrently, to commence on 15 July 2001, and to expire on 14 July 2004.' 'A non parole period be set, for each count, of 2 years and 3 months to...