Groom v Police (No 2) - [2013] SASC 50

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
GROOM v POLICE (No 2)
[2013] SASC 50
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan (ex tempore)
26 March 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Appeal against conviction - appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of failing to comply with a bail agreement and one count of contravening a term of an intervention order - at the time of his pleas, the appellant was unrepresented and in custody - the Magistrate gave the appellant three options: be remanded in custody, remain in custody while a home detention report was prepared, or plead guilty to the charges - the Magistrate indicated that if the appellant pleaded guilty he would regard time spend in custody as a sufficient penalty - whether the appellant should be permitted to withdraw his pleas of guilty.
Held: A plea of guilty will be withdrawn if the defendant establishes that a miscarriage of justice has occurred - the circumstances of each case must be considered - the fact a trial judge has made an indication as to potential sentences upon a guilty plea will not be sufficient of itself to establish a miscarriage - the respondent rightly conceded that in the circumstances a miscarriage of justice had occurred - appeal allowed and matter remitted for trial before another Magistrate.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42, referred to.
Green v Police (1999) 108 A Crim R 246; Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120; v Boag (1994) 73 A Crim R 35; R v Wilkes (2001) 122 A Crim R 310; R v Wilkes (2001) 122 A Crim R 310; R v Collis (1989) 32 A Crim R 371; R v Clayton (1984) 35 SASR 233; R v Boyd [2000] NSWCCA 110; R v Pugh (2005) 158 A Crim R 302, considered.

GROOM v POLICE (No 2)
[2013] SASC 50
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

SULAN J: The appellant, Stephen Barry Groom, was charged with two counts of failing to comply with a bail agreement. It is alleged that those breaches occurred, first, on 15 November 2012 and, secondly, between 15 and 16 November 2012. He is also charged with, on 15 November 2012, contravening a term of an intervention order.
The matter was listed before a Magistrate on 7 December 2012. At the time, the appellant was in custody. When he appeared in person, the Magistrate indicated that the appellant had three options: first, to be further remanded in custody; secondly, to remain in custody while a home detention report was prepared; or thirdly, if he could see his way clear, (and it was a matter for him) to plead guilty to the charges. The Magistrate indicated that, upon the appellant pleading guilty, he would regard the time that the appellant had spent in custody as a sufficient penalty and not impose a…

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 Groom v Police (No 2) 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] SASC 50
Decision Date: 26 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Groom, the appellant, brought an appeal against his conviction to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Groom had pleaded guilty to two counts of failing to comply with a bail agreement and one count of contravening a term of an intervention order. At the time of his pleas, Groom was unrepresented and in custody. The Magistrate presented Groom with three options: be remanded in custody, remain in custody while a home detention report was prepared, or plead guilty to the charges. The Magistrate also indicated that if Groom pleaded guilty, he would regard time spent in custody as a sufficient penalty. Groom sought to withdraw his pleas of guilty, arguing that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The legal issue before the court was whether Groom should be permitted to withdraw his pleas of guilty. The court considered the general principles applicable to appeals against convictions based on guilty pleas, particularly when the defendant was unrepresented at the time of the plea. The court noted that a plea of guilty will be withdrawn if the defendant establishes that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The circumstances of each case must be considered, and the fact that a trial judge has made an indication as to potential sentences upon a guilty plea will not be sufficient of itself to establish a miscarriage. The court considered the specific circumstances of Groom’s case, including his unrepresented status and the Magistrate’s indication of potential sentences.

The court held that in Groom’s circumstances, a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The respondent conceded this point, leading to the conclusion that Groom’s pleas should be withdrawn. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for trial before another Magistrate. The court emphasised that the circumstances of each case must be carefully considered, and the fact that a trial judge has made an indication as to potential sentences upon a guilty plea is not enough on its own to establish a miscarriage of justice. However, in this particular case, the combination of Groom being unrepresented and the Magistrate’s indication of potential sentences did constitute a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held: A plea of guilty will be withdrawn if the defendant establishes that a miscarriage of justice has occurred - the circumstances of each case must be considered - the fact a trial judge has made an indication as to potential sentences upon a guilty plea will not be sufficient of itself to establish a miscarriage - the respondent rightly conceded that in the circumstances a miscarriage of justice had occurred - appeal allowed and matter remitted for trial before another Magistrate.

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.