Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Woods v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2014] NSWCA 465 Hearing dates: 8/12/2014 Decision date: 08 December 2014 Before: Emmett JA Decision: Proceedings 2014/61940 (1) The plaintiff and the Director of Public Prosecutions each be provided with a copy of the following excerpts of audio recordings made on 2 October 2013 in District Court proceedings 2011/00299900 before his Honour Judge Hanley: (a) From the beginning of the recording made on that day to the end of what is transcribed on page 1 of the transcript of the evidence for that date; (b) From the words "I note that during the hearing by the magistrate" attributed to Judge Hanley on page 12 of the judgment transcript to the end of the recording made on that date; (2) The notice of motion filed on 21 November 2014 be otherwise dismissed. Proceedings 2014/164823 The notice of motion filed on 21 November 2014 be dismissed. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: PROCEDURE - access to audio recordings of court proceedings - whether the written transcript evinces any relevant inaccuracy Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Andrew Keith Woods (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Self-represented (Applicant) H Langley (leave granted to appear for Respondent) Solicitors: Self-represented (Applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent) File Number(s): 2014/164823; 2014/61940 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Before: Hanley DCJ; Bennett DCJ File Number(s): 2011/299900; 2012/323308 Judgment 1EMMETT JA: By a notice of motion filed on 21 November 2014, Mr Andrew Woods seeks access to the audio recording of certain proceedings in the District Court. The proceedings are the subject of an application for judicial review under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). 2The first proceeding in the District Court was heard by Hanley DCJ. Mr Woods was charged with a number of offences relating to the possession of cannabis leaf and cannabis plants and a deemed supply as a result of the quantity of the cannabis in his possession. The hearing before Hanley DCJ, which was an appeal from a decision of the Local Court, was conducted on 30 September, 1 October and 2 October. Hanley DCJ gave ex tempore reasons on 2 October 2013 for concluding that the offences were made out. 3Mr Woods has narrowed his application in relation to the audio recording to the proceedings on 2 October 2013. He points to two parts of the transcription of the recording that he says are inaccurate. First, he says that, when he came into Court on 2 October 2013, Hanley DCJ was addressing Mr Reynolds, who was appearing for the Crown. Mr Woods says that, as he came into the courtroom, Hanley DCJ said, "I've just been speaking about your matter with Mr Reynolds before you arrived." No such words are recorded in the transcript, which begins with the judge saying, "Just take a seat Mr Woods. I received your e-mail." 4The second alleged inaccuracy pointed to by Mr Woods concerns exchanges that occurred after Hanley DCJ had given reasons for confirming his conviction. The transcript records that Mr Woods asked where he could order a "court audio". His Honour is recorded as responding that a transcript could be ordered "through the normal course". The transcript then records that Mr Woods said, "Thank you, your Honour," and that Mr Reynolds said, "Thank you, your Honour." 5The transcript then contains further exchanges between the judge and Mr Reynolds. Mr Woods asserts that those exchanges did not occur while he was in the courtroom and that therefore the transcript is inaccurate. Mr Woods said that there may have been other inaccuracies in the transcript but he did not identify any other inaccuracy with any specificity or precision. 6In the circumstances, I am prepared to direct that there be made available to Mr Woods and to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is the effective resisting party in the proceedings, that part of the audio recording of 2 October 2013 from the beginning of the recording until the end of what appears on page 1 of the transcript, together with that part of the recording commencing with the words, "His Honour: Thank you Mr Reynolds for your assistance" (which appears on page 14 of the transcript) to the end of the recording. 7In relation to the other proceedings, which were an appeal to the District Court from the Local Court and were heard by Bennett DCJ, Mr Woods limited his application to an audio recording of the reasons for judgment of Bennett DCJ given on 22 May 2014. In the proceedings, Mr Woods appealed from a conviction in the Local Court at Burwood on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. 8Mr Woods asserted that the transcription of Bennett DCJ's reasons is inaccurate in that his recollection is that, at one stage, Bennett DCJ addressed him in the second person, whereas the transcript refers to the same words in the third person. That does not appear to me to be a relevant inaccuracy. It is open to a judicial officer to revise ex tempore reasons to correct grammatical and other errors. That being the only inaccuracy that was identified by Mr Woods, I am not disposed to give any direction that any part of the audio transcript of the reasons of Bennett DCJ be made available. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the transcript. 9I will make orders along the lines that I have foreshadowed concerning the making available to Mr Woods and to the Director of Public Prosecutions of parts of the audio recording of the proceedings on 2 October 2013. I will order that the notice of motion be otherwise dismissed. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 23 December 2014