Johann Sebastian Lo Castro v The Queen

[2014] HCASL 74

JOHANN SEBASTIAN LO CASTRO

v

THE QUEEN

[2014] HCASL 74
D6/2013

1. The applicant was tried in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and convicted of five counts of unlawful assault and three counts of sexual intercourse without consent in respect of a certain complainant.  After the return of the verdicts, and during the course of separate proceedings concerning a different complainant, the applicant pleaded guilty to a further four counts of unlawful assault and one count of attempting to have sexual intercourse without consent.  The applicant was sentenced by Martin CJ in respect of the several offences described above to a total sentence of 13 years' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of eight years.  In this Court the applicant has been refused special leave to appeal against that sentence[1].

   [1]Lo Castro v The Queen [2011] HCASL 168.

2. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from that part of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory (Riley CJ, Southwood and Barr JJ) dismissing his appeal against convictions in respect of the second complainant.

3. At the hearing of the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal received evidence directed to the question of whether the applicant's pleas of guilty in the second trial had been properly entered and whether they should be set aside on various grounds, including the ground that they were tainted by the results in the first trial, a new trial having been ordered in respect of that trial.

4. In refusing the applicant's applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal in respect of convictions in the second trial, the Court of Criminal Appeal was not satisfied that the applicant's pleas of guilty were attributable to factors other than the voluntary and deliberate choice made by him. 

5. We are not persuaded that the approach taken, and conclusions reached, by the Court of Criminal Appeal involved any failure to apply well‑settled principles concerning a change of plea.  Further, in reaching its conclusions, the Court of Criminal Appeal noted that in his evidence before that Court, the applicant did not clearly deny that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged in the second trial, and did not clearly assert any defence on the merits.  That being so, we are not persuaded that it would be in the interests of justice, either generally, or in this particular case, that there be a grant of special leave to appeal.

6. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
2 April 2014 S.M. Crennan