Budrodeen v The Queen - [2017] NSWCCA 100

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Budrodeen v R [2017] NSWCCA 100
Hearing dates: 8 May 2017
Decision date: 19 May 2017
Before: Beazley ACJ at [1];
Adamson J at [52];
Wilson J at [53]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted;
2. Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against conviction – plea of guilty – integrity of plea – circumstances which will justify setting aside a conviction following a guilty plea – whether such circumstances arose

CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against conviction – destruction of evidence – whether certain CCTV footage was supressed, concealed or destroyed
CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against conviction –entrapment – no defence of entrapment – whether integrity of guilty plea impugned
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 317
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 306C
Cases Cited: Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132
R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218
R v Cincotta (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 1 November 1996, unreported)
R v Davies (1993) 19 MVR 481
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231
R v Rae (No 2) (2005) 157 A Crim R 182; [2005] NSWCCA 380
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19
Sabapathy v R [2008] NSWCCA 82
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adam Wayne Budrodeen (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
In person (Applicant)
T Smith (Respondent)
Solicitors:
In person (Applicant)
Office of the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/339339
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Citation:

R v Budrodeen

Date of Decision:

1 October 2015

Before:

Ellis DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/339339

Headnote

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 30 September 2015, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse with a person between the age of 14 and 16 years contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 66C(3) and was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 3 years, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months.

At the time of the offence, the complainant was a 15 year old school student. The offence occurred when the applicant, who was a taxi driver/owner, was driving the complainant home from a hotel, where the complainant had been with his parents and family.

Initially the applicant told the police that the complainant had said that he was 16 years of age and that the sexual conduct was consensual. The applicant later told the police that he thought the complainant was 18, given that he had just left a hotel.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction on two grounds, alleging:

Ground 1: Destruction of evidence; and

Ground 2: An act of entrapment was committed.

The Court granted leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal.

Beazley ACJ (Adamson and Wilson JJ agreeing):

Held:

(1) The issue…

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 Budrodeen v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Budrodeen v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 100
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 100
Decision Date: 19 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Budrodeen v The Queen is a criminal law case where the applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction. The applicant had pleaded guilty to various criminal charges, but now claimed that the integrity of his plea was compromised due to the suppression, concealment or destruction of certain CCTV footage. The case required the court to decide on several legal issues, including the circumstances that would justify setting aside a conviction following a guilty plea, the alleged destruction of evidence, and whether the applicant's claim of entrapment was a valid defence.

The court examined the applicant's arguments and found that there was no evidence of suppression, concealment or destruction of the CCTV footage. The court held that the applicant's plea of guilty was not rendered invalid by the absence of the footage as it did not play a critical role in the case. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's claim of entrapment was not a valid defence, as the applicant had willingly participated in the criminal activity without any undue pressure from law enforcement. The court concluded that the applicant's guilty plea was made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences, and therefore, the integrity of the plea was not impugned.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction. The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted setting aside the conviction following a guilty plea. The court further held that the applicant's claim of entrapment was not a valid defence and did not affect the integrity of the plea. Consequently, the applicant's conviction stood, and he was required to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that a guilty plea is made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences, and that the suppression, concealment or destruction of evidence does not necessarily render a guilty plea invalid.

Orders