Schwalm v R (No 2)

[2012] ACTCA 56

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Jurisdiction, practice and procedure
3. › Judgments and orders
1. Appeal
2. › Jurisdiction, practice and procedure
3. › Amending, varying and setting aside orders
1. Appeal
2. › Jurisdiction, practice and procedure
3. › Slip rule — correction of sealed orders
1. Criminal law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Calculation of sentence end date

Quick Take

The ACT Court of Appeal exercised its power to amend a sealed order that did not correctly reflect the Court's intention, correcting an incorrectly calculated sentence end date (from 14 to 13 December 2012) and adding the omitted order dismissing the appeal. The Court confirmed, applying Burrell v The Queen, that a court may alter a sealed order where it does not truly represent what the Court pronounced or intended to pronounce, and noted that s 61 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) provides additional support for correcting erroneous sentence dates.

Case Details

Citation[2012] ACTCA 56

CourtACTCA

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on2

2012Schwalm v RACTCA 43
2008Burrell v The QueenHCA 34

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in