An agreed schedule of facts tendered at sentence reflects the informed choices of both parties for the singular purpose of sentencing and does not bind the defendant to testify to the truth of those facts if subsequently called as a witness. A defendant's subsequent evidence inconsistent with the agreed facts does not, without more, constitute a 'clear factual error of substance' justifying reopening under s 188(1)(c). Evidence obtained by compelling a witness to answer after a legitimate claim of privilege against self-incrimination is inadmissible against that witness. On appeal against a resentence under s 188, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to quash both the decision to reopen and the resentence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.