Gurappaji v The Queen

[2018] VSCA 187

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0134

KAVITHA GURAPPAJI	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	PRIEST, BEACH and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	1 August 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT	1 August 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2018] VSCA 187
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Gurappaji (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Davis, 23 May 2017)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Conviction — Applicant pleaded guilty to cultivating a narcotic plant (cannabis) in a commercial quantity — Whether plea freely made — Whether applicant intended to admit guilt for offence she believed herself to be guilty of — Whether undue pressure from counsel to plead guilty — Leave to appeal refused.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Sutton	SDR Law
For the Respondent	Ms D Piekusis	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA
WEINBERG JA:

Introduction

1. Kavitha Gurappaji, the applicant, asserts that, despite having pleaded guilty to the charge in the County Court, her conviction for cultivating a narcotic plant (cannabis) in a commercial quantity[1] should be set aside.  She thus seeks leave to appeal against her conviction.

   [1]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s 72A. The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.

1. In essence, the applicant claims that her plea of guilty was not freely made and that she did not fully understand the nature of the charge, and that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit her to withdraw her plea.[2]  The grounds of appeal are formulated as follows:

   [2]Reasons for Ruling, unreported, 23 May 2016, Judge Davis (‘Reasons’).

1.   Her Honour erred in law in dismissing the Applicant’s application to withdraw her plea of guilty and in ruling that:

(a)the Applicant’s plea of guilty was freely made;

(b)that in entering a plea of guilty the Applicant intended by her plea to accept guilt to an offence of which she believed herself to be guilty; and

(c)the Applicant fully understood the nature of the charges and intended to admit she was guilty of them even if she believed she was not.

2.   A miscarriage of justice would arise if the plea of guilty were permitted to stand having regard to:

(a)the evidence that the plea of guilty was not freely made;

(b)the evidence of the Applicant that in entering a plea of guilty she did not intend by that to accept guilt to an offence of which she believed herself to be guilty;

(c)the Applicant’s mental condition at the time the plea of guilty was entered; and or

(d)all the circumstances.

1. For the reasons that follow, we would refuse the application.

Governing principles

1. Before turning to the facts of the instant case, it is convenient to set out the principles that guide the Court where it is sought to set aside a conviction following a plea of guilty.

1. At the outset, it should be noted that the language of s 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 departs…