Grey v The Queen - [2021] ACTCA 6

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Grey v The Queen

Citation:

[2021] ACTCA 6

Hearing Date:

17 February 2021

Decision Date:

17 February 2021

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [16]

Catchwords:

APPEAL – application to adduce fresh evidence – application for
extension of time to institute appeal –

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 54(1), 60(1)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 271.7

Parties:

Bradley Lester Grey (Appellant)
The Queen (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented (Appellant)
D Barrow (Respondent)

K McCann (Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented (Appellant)

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Numbers:

ACTCA 52 of 2019 ACTCA 12 of 2020

Decisions under appeal:

Court:	Supreme Court of the ACT
Before:	Murrell CJ
Date of Decision:	4 November 2020
Case Title:	R v Grey
Court File Number:	SCC 246 of 2018
Court:	Supreme Court of the ACT
Before:	Murrell CJ
Date of Decision:	27 February 2020
Case Title:	R v Grey (No 3)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 43
Court File Number:	SCC 246 of 2018

SCC 335 of 2019

BURNS J:

1. I have before me an application dated 26 October 2020 lodged by the appellant, Bradley Lester Grey, seeking orders permitting him to lead fresh evidence on an upcoming appeal in this Court and for permission to appeal his conviction on a Commonwealth charge to which he entered a plea of guilty before the primary judge. It is necessary to provide some brief background to the application.
2. On 4 November 2019, a jury found the appellant guilty of 14 counts of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent and 6 counts of committing an act of indecency without consent. The offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent is contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act) and carries a maximum penalty of 12 years' imprisonment. The offence of committing an act of indecency without consent is contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of 7 years' imprisonment. I will refer to these as the Territory offences.
3. In addition, on 6 February 2020, the appellant entered a plea of guilty before the primary judge to a charge contrary to s 271.7 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) alleging that between about 30 June 2013 and 25 August 2013 at various places in Australia including the Australian Capital Territory he organised or facilitated the domestic transportation of a person under the age of 18 years intending that she be used to provide sexual services during or following transportation. This Commonwealth offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.
4. On 27 February 2020, the appellant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 11 years and 5 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and three months. The appellant was represented by counsel and a solicitor in the proceedings before the primary judge. On 29 November 2019, the appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal against the…

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 Grey v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Grey v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 6
Case: [2021] ACTCA 6
Decision Date: 17 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Grey, sought to adduce fresh evidence and an extension of time to institute an appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The precise nature of the dispute and the original decision being appealed are not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issues before the court were whether to grant an extension of time for Grey to lodge an appeal and whether to permit the introduction of fresh evidence on appeal. These applications are typically considered in light of the prospects of success of the proposed appeal and the reasons for the delay.

The court's reasoning and the legal principles applied in determining these applications are not elaborated upon in the provided excerpt. The decision ultimately turned on the specific facts and circumstances presented by the applicant in support of his applications.

The final orders of the court are indicated to be found at paragraph [16] of the full judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [16]

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.