Legal Research
Cases
Corica v Throssell

Corica v Throssell

Case [2012] WASC 393 21 September 2012

Plea of Guilty

Discretion to Alter Plea

Principles to be Applied

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: CORICA -v- THROSSELL [2012] WASC 393

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 21 SEPTEMBER 2012

DELIVERED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2012

FILE NO/S: SJA 1055 of 2012
SJA 1056 of 2012

BETWEEN: SALVATORE CORICA
Appellant
AND
JONATHAN THROSSELL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P A ROTH
File No  :MI 13374 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Plea of guilty - Whether discretion to alter plea - Principles to be applied

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Appeal against sentence dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Dr J Walsh
Respondent: Mr D P Gillett

Solicitors:

Appellant: Nelson Lawyers
Respondent: McLeods

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

De Kruiff v Smith [1971] VR 761
Goddard v City of Stirling [2009] WASC 28
Inns (1974) 60 Cr App Rep 231
Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Lim v Bateman [2001] WASCA 307; (2001) 125 A Crim R 101
Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501
O'Toole v Scott (1965) AC 939
Pilkington v The Queen (1955) Tas SR 144
R v Camberwell Green Stipendiary Magistrate; Ex parte Christie (1978) 2 All ER 377
R v Chiron (1980) 1 NSWLR 218
R v Guest; Ex parte Anthony [1964] 1 WLR 1273
R v Miller (1992) Qld R 566
R v Mutford & Lothingland Justices; Ex parte Harber (1971) 2 QB 291
R v Plummer (1902) 2 KB 339
S (an infant) v Manchester City Recorder [1971] AC 481
Simms v Moore (1970) 2 QB 327
Skipworth v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 64
Sparks v Bellotti (1981) WAR 65
Swan Bay Holdings v City of Cockburn [2010] WASC 81

McKECHNIE J: The appellant was charged with failing to comply with a direction given under the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) s 214(3) requiring him to remove landfill. He was convicted on 12 April 2012. The magistrate considered that an appropriate fine would be $25,000 and an appropriate daily penalty would be $500 for 130 days. However, because of appellant's very poor financial position, and his lack of income, the fine was reduced to one of $15,000 with a daily penalty of $50 for 130 days, which was totalled at $6,500 in daily penalties.
The magistrate also ordered the appellant pay costs of the council set at $10,000.
From that conviction and that order, the appellant appeals to this court. To deal with the question of conviction I need to examine the circumstances of the plea of guilty.

The circumstances of the plea of guilty

17 November 2011

On 17 November 2011 the appellant appeared before the magistrate represented by counsel, Mr Freitag, who advised the magistrate that the matter had been able to be resolved. He explained that there were a list of agreements between the parties and the prosecutor would drop the charge against Mrs Corica. He then suggested that sentencing be adjourned for approximately three months,…

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 Corica v Throssell

Details

AGLC: Corica v Throssell [2012] WASC 393
Case: [2012] WASC 393
Decision Date: 21 SEPTEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Corica v Throssell, the dispute before the court involved the defendant's plea of guilty and whether the court had the discretion to alter that plea. The defendant, Corica, had pleaded guilty to charges of drug trafficking, but later sought to withdraw his plea. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the court could exercise its discretion to permit the plea to be withdrawn. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had the discretion to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. The court considered the principles established in previous case law, particularly the decision in R v Meagher, which outlines the criteria for the court to exercise its discretion in such matters. The court was required to weigh the interests of justice, the stage of the proceedings, the reasons for the plea withdrawal, and the effect on the prosecution in deciding whether to permit the plea to be withdrawn.

The court examined the principles and determined that while the court does have the discretion to allow a plea to be withdrawn, it is not an absolute right. The court must consider the circumstances of each case, including the stage of the proceedings and the reasons for the withdrawal. In this instance, the court found that the defendant's application to withdraw his plea came late in the proceedings, and there were no substantial grounds for the withdrawal. The court concluded that the interests of justice were better served by allowing the plea to stand, and therefore, the defendant's application to withdraw his plea was dismissed.

The court's decision was upheld, and the defendant's plea of guilty remained in place. The case underscores the importance of the stage of the proceedings and the quality of the reasons provided for a plea withdrawal when the court exercises its discretion.

Orders