Beechey v McDonald - [2010] TASSC 47

[2010] TASSC 47

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Beechey v McDonald [2010] TASSC 47

PARTIES:  BEECHEY, Anthony John
  v
  McDONALD, Scott Raymond

FILE NO/S:  712/2010
DELIVERED ON:  25 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  18 October 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against conviction recorded on guilty plea – Particular cases – Plea must be unequivocal – Assertions inconsistent with guilt made during sentencing hearing.

Marlow v R [1990] Tas R 1; Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501 at 511, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3446]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  B R McTaggart
           Respondent:  S Nicholson
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Ogilvie Jennings
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2010] TASSC 47
Number of paragraphs: 12

Serial No 47/2010
File No 712/2010

ANTHONY JOHN BEECHEY v SCOTT RAYMOND McDONALD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

25 October 2010

The applicant, having pleaded guilty to two charges of breaching family violence orders, was convicted and sentenced to a wholly suspended term of two months' imprisonment. He has filed a notice to review this outcome on the ground that the learned magistrate erred in accepting his plea of guilty to one of the charges as he, by his counsel, had made assertions that were inconsistent with his guilt of the assault which was the subject of that charge.

The following is the background to the charges. On 26 May 2008, a family violence order was made against the applicant that included an order that he not enter premises where the complainant, Carol Beechey, was residing. The complainant was his wife and the mother of his four children.

On 26 September 2008, when returning children to the complainant's residence, the applicant entered the residence and placed some of the children's belongings inside. With respect to this incident, a complaint (the first complaint) was issued against the applicant charging him with breaching the family violence order by entering the premises.

On 12 December 2008, the family violence order against the applicant was replaced by an order in much the same terms as that of 26 May 2008, it included an order that the applicant not directly or indirectly threaten, harass, abuse or assault the complainant.

Prior to Christmas 2008, the applicant and the complainant jointly purchased an LCD TV as a Christmas present for some or all of their children. It was arranged that the applicant and the complainant, together with others, would attend the home of the complainant's parents to open presents on Christmas day. The applicant and the complainant attended on that day and after the opening of presents, one of their children wanted to take the LCD TV with her as she left with the applicant. The complainant was not happy about this. The applicant picked up the box containing the LCD TV and, as he carried it from the house, the box came into contact with the complainant who fell and dislocated a shoulder.

In respect of the above incident the applicant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beechey v McDonald

Details

AGLC: Beechey v McDonald [2010] TASSC 47
Case: [2010] TASSC 47
Decision Date: 25 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Beechey v McDonald was heard by the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Beechey, appealed against a conviction for murder that was recorded on a guilty plea. The appellant, McDonald, who was the judge in the trial court, presided over the sentencing hearing and made findings that were inconsistent with the plea of guilt. The appeal raised questions regarding the legality of the conviction when assertions made during the sentencing hearing contradicted the plea of guilt.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a conviction could stand when the accused had entered a guilty plea but made assertions during the sentencing hearing that were inconsistent with guilt. The court was required to determine whether such assertions necessitated a new trial or an appeal against the conviction. It was critical to establish whether the plea was unequivocal and if the assertions made during the sentencing hearing could invalidate the conviction recorded on the guilty plea.

The court held that the assertions made by Beechey during the sentencing hearing were inconsistent with the plea of guilt and demonstrated a lack of unequivocal acceptance of responsibility for the offence. Given that the plea of guilt is a fundamental aspect of the conviction, the court found that the assertions effectively called into question the validity of the plea. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, ordering a new trial. This decision emphasised the necessity for a plea to be unequivocal and that any subsequent assertions inconsistent with guilt could undermine the conviction.

Orders