Sarah Jane Parkinson(Appellant) v Leesa Alexander

• Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory
• Judge: Refshauge J
• Judgment Date: 19 October 2017
• Docket Number: File Number: SCA 80 of 2015
• Court: Supreme Court of ACT
• Date: 19 October 2017

[2017] ACTSC 305

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Before:

Refshauge J

File Number: SCA 80 of 2015

Sarah Jane Parkinson

(Appellant)

and

Leesa Alexander

(Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr K Archer (Appellant)

Mr A Williamson (Respondent)

Cases Cited:

DJL v The Central Authority [2000] HCA 17 ; 201 CLR 226

Elson v Ayton [2010] ACTSC 70 ; 241 FLR 178

Jovanovic v The Queen (1999) 92 FCA 1008 ; 92 FCR 580

Parkinson v Alexander [2017] ACTSC 201

Parkinson v Alexander (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 290

R v Calvert [2010] ACTSC 80

R v Elphick (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 302

Legislation Cited:

Court Procedures 2006 (ACT), r 6906

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — JUDGMENT AND ORDERS — Amendment — error in order — accidental slip or omission — slip rule — r 6906 of the Court Procedures 2006 (ACT)

Decision:

• 1. That the order made on 9 October 2017 be amended by omitting “CC2014/5648” and substituting “CC2015/5648”.

Refshauge J

1 On 4 August 2017, I partly upheld an appeal from the ACT Magistrates Court and set aside two convictions that had been entered in that Court: Parkinson v Alexander [2017] ACTSC 201.

2 I dismissed one of the two charges that had been laid but sought submissions on the other as it was not clear whether there should be a retrial. In the event, I ordered a retrial of that charge: Parkinson v Alexander (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 290.

3 In the Magistrates Court, each charge is allocated a specific number. The usual form of numbering is to use the prefix “CC” (presumably for “criminal charge”) followed by the year in which the charge was laid, which is followed by a forward slash and the number assigned to the particular charge. This is to be compared to the arrangements in this Court where, while a single file is opened for each indictment, the indictment may include many charges.

4 Sometimes the charge numbers used for Magistrates Court proceedings are set out slightly differently by, after the prefix “CC”, using the unique identifying number followed by “of [year]”, as appears above.

5 In this case, when remitting the relevant charge to the Magistrates Court for rehearing, the order I made included the Magistrates Court number, a useful unique identifier for the charge. Thus, the order was:

That the charge of making a false accusation on 21 March 2014 (CC2014/5648) be remitted to the ACT Magistrates Court for retrial before a different Magistrate in accordance with these reasons and the reasons given for upholding the appeal.

6 The Registry of the Magistrates Court has now drawn my attention to the fact that the charge was actually laid in 2015 and the relevant number should be CC2015/5648. That is certainly how it appeared in the Notice of Appeal: Parkinson v Alexander at [21]. The reference in the order I made is clearly a clerical error.

7 The order has been...