30 Apr 2021
The Court recalled and reissued its 6 September 2011 judgment because an omission regarding the possessing cannabis oil charge materially affected the record of sentence and, on the authorities concerning recall, the amendments required were too extensive for r 45B and recall was necessary to achieve justice.
11 May 2020
Recall granted. The reference to the wrong charge was a clerical/annotation error and is corrected by reissuing the judgment to reflect that the conviction concerned a punch to the head. Sentences for the male assaults female were unlawfully imposed in excess of the statutory maximum; the appropriate term for each such charge is one year, but this Court lacks jurisdiction to amend unlawful sentences by recall and the District Court/sentencing court should be asked to correct under s 180 Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The 'ride or die' remark was factual narrative and did not cause prejudice and…