Denning and Garden v The Queen - [2013] QDC 185

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Denning & Garden v The Queen [2013] QDC 185

PARTIES:

SEAN OWEN DENNING

And

HALENA ANNE GARDEN

(Applicants)

v

THE QUEEN

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

424/13

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Section 590A Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

15 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2013

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

Each of the applications is dismissed. I direct that pleas of guilty be entered in respect of each applicant.

CATCHWORDS:

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS - PROCEDURE – TAKING AND RECORDING PLEA OF GUILTY BY MAGISTRATE - where full hand up committal – where magistrate formally charged each applicant – where solicitor entered a plea of guilty on behalf of each applicant – where magistrate confirmed the plea with each applicant

APPLICATION - CRIMINAL LAW - PLEAS - GENERAL PLEAS - PLEA OF GUILTY - WITHDRAWAL AND RESTORATION OF PLEA - GENERALLY - where each applicant applied for plea of guilty to be set aside - where each applicant makes application under sections 590AA and 600 of the Criminal Code – where second applicant makes application alternatively under inherent jurisdiction of the court at common law – where first applicant contends plea of guilty was the result of an inducement – where second applicant contends she was not aware she was criminally liable for the use of a weapon during the burglary when plea was entered – where court satisfied pleas duly entered – where court not satisfied failing to allow applicants to change their pleas would produce a miscarriage of justice - where application is dismissed

COUNSEL:

Mr S Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant Denning

Mr A M Christie for the applicant Garden

Ms V Trafford-Walker for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Woods Prince Lawyers for the applicant Denning

Reardon and Associates Lawyers for the applicant Garden

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.

Each applicant has been charged on indictment with one count of burglary, by breaking, in the night, with violence, while armed, in company.

At the committal proceedings held on 17 December 2012 they each entered a plea of guilty to the charge. When arraigned in this court on 18 July 2013 they each entered a plea of not guilty to the same charge. The applicant Denning has applied under sections 590AA and 600 of the Criminal Code of Queensland (‘the Code’) for his plea of guilty at the committal to be set aside. He has also made application seeking a ruling that, as a matter of law, there is no case for him to answer on that charge. The applicant Garden has also applied to have her plea set aside in respect of the circumstance of aggravation of “while armed” (s419(3)(b)(ii)), either pursuant to the provisions of sections 590AA and 600 or pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

Facts of the alleged offence

The complainant Dianne June Smith, at the relevant time, lived with her brother William Smith at a rural property.

On Sunday 16 September 2012, Garden texted…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Denning and Garden v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QDC 185
Decision Date: 15 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Denning and Garden, the applicants, sought to have their pleas of guilty set aside in the context of committal proceedings. The applicants, facing charges, had their pleas of guilty entered by their solicitor before the magistrate, who subsequently confirmed the pleas with them. The applicants applied for their pleas to be set aside under sections 590AA and 600 of the Criminal Code, as well as under the inherent jurisdiction of the court at common law. The applicants argued that their pleas were not voluntary due to alleged inducements and a lack of awareness of their criminal liability for the use of a weapon during the burglary.

The court was tasked with determining whether the pleas were duly entered and whether denying the applications to set aside the pleas would result in a miscarriage of justice. The applicants contended that their pleas were not voluntary as they were induced by threats and lacked awareness of their liability. The court considered the submissions and found that the pleas were properly entered and confirmed by the magistrate. However, the court concluded that allowing the applicants to change their pleas would not necessarily prevent a miscarriage of justice and dismissed the applications.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the established procedures for entering pleas in committal proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of the magistrate confirming the plea with each applicant and found that this procedural safeguard was satisfied. Despite the applicants' claims of unawareness and inducement, the court held that the pleas were valid and that there was no basis to set them aside. Consequently, the court directed that the pleas of guilty be entered for each applicant.

Each of the applications is dismissed. I direct that pleas of guilty be entered in respect of each applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each of the applications is dismissed. I direct that pleas of guilty be entered in respect of each applicant.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Denning & Garden v The Queen [2013] QDC 185
PARTIES:	SEAN OWEN DENNING And HALENA ANNE GARDEN (Applicants) v THE QUEEN (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	424/13
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Section 590A Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	15 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 July 2013
JUDGE:	Farr SC DCJ
ORDER:	Each of the applications is dismissed. I direct that pleas of guilty be entered in respect of each applicant.
CATCHWORDS:	COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS - PROCEDURE – TAKING AND RECORDING PLEA OF GUILTY BY MAGISTRATE - where full hand up committal – where magistrate formally charged each applicant – where solicitor entered a plea of guilty on behalf of each applicant – where magistrate confirmed the plea with each applicant APPLICATION - CRIMINAL LAW - PLEAS - GENERAL PLEAS - PLEA OF GUILTY - WITHDRAWAL AND RESTORATION OF PLEA - GENERALLY - where each applicant applied for plea of guilty to be set aside - where each applicant makes application under sections 590AA and 600 of the Criminal Code – where second applicant makes application alternatively under inherent jurisdiction of the court at common law – where first applicant contends plea of guilty was the result of an inducement – where second applicant contends she was not aware she was criminally liable for the use of a weapon during the burglary when plea was entered – where court satisfied pleas duly entered – where court not satisfied failing to allow applicants to change their pleas would produce a miscarriage of justice - where application is dismissed
COUNSEL:	Mr S Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant Denning Mr A M Christie for the applicant Garden Ms V Trafford-Walker for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Woods Prince Lawyers for the applicant Denning Reardon and Associates Lawyers for the applicant Garden Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.