We are not called upon to decide whether there is a time limit, or a limit by reference to the stage of the proceedings, after which a correction may not be made. It is sufficient for us to decide, as we do, that in the case before us the correction was still available when it was made. We note that in some of the authorities already referred to where a correction was made, the erroneous statement by the foreman had been accepted as the verdict of the jury, the accused had been released, a note had been made of the 'verdict' and the jury had been discharged but had not dispersed. In other of the authorities where the correction was not made but a new trial was ordered more time had elapsed and, in particular, the jury had dispersed. It may be - although we do not decide - that there is a distinction as to the time at which the erroneous statement of the verdict can be corrected by the substitution of the actual verdict and the time at which the false 'verdict' may be expunged and a new trial ordered. There is certainly authority supporting the division of the problem into two parts - expunging the false 'verdict', and choosing the consequences ie correction or new trial. It is not necessary, however, for us to decide, and we express no opinion, as to what the position would have been in this case if the jury had separated and left the precincts of the court before the error was disclosed. We also note that the 'record' of a conviction in the Supreme Court (and, it may well be, in the District Criminal Courts) is not the endorsement by the Clerk of Arraigns, or other officer, on the back of the information of the proceedings at, or the result of, the trial, nor any note made by such officer or by the judge in any note book, but the formal report signed by the trial Judge at the end of the sittings after the last prisoner in that sittings has been dealt with (Reg v Nam and Sainsbury [1968] SASR 107)."