Leach v The Queen

[2012] ACTCA 20

ADRIAN ROGER LEACH v THE QUEEN
[2012] ACTCA 20 (4 May 2012)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 6 - 2011
No. SCC 278 of 2008

Judges:        Higgins CJ, Refshauge and Lander JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           4 May 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 6 - 2011
  )          No. SCC 278 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ADRIAN ROGER LEACH

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Refshauge and Lander JJ
Date:  6 May 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 6 - 2011
  )          No. SCC 278 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ADRIAN ROGER LEACH

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Refshauge and Lander JJ
Date:  6 May 2012
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIGGINS CJ:

1. I have read the material provided by Mr Leach, including that material which he now seeks leave to adduce.  I would think that, even if that material were adduced, it would add little, if anything, to the material before Penfold J, and I would thus refuse leave to do so.

1. As far as the remainder of the matter is concerned, Mr Leach pleaded guilty.  He was represented before Penfold J who had a variety of material before her, including quite extensive psychological reports. 

1. There was much focus by Mr Leach on an event which occurred in 2002.  That event was taken into account by Penfold J as a significant matter.  It explained, but did not, of course, excuse, the hostility he displayed on the occasion in 2008 when these offences occurred.  Even conceding the version of that event embraced by the appellant, it did not significantly reduce his responsibility for the stabbings in 2008, as Penfold J, in my view, rightly found. 

1. For the reasons that she so comprehensively expressed, her Honour’s sentence for the offences was, if anything, lenient.  It certainly was not manifestly excessive. 

1. Issues as to the reason why Mr Leach entered a plea of guilty rather than otherwise are, to my mind, no longer relevant or indeed capable of examination without grounds being demonstrated.  No such grounds have been demonstrated.  I would certainly refuse leave to Mr Leach if he were now to attempt to do so in order to change his plea.  

1. Nothing has emerged to suggest that there was any matter which would render the plea offered either unsafe or inappropriate.  The plea did result, I note, in two other charges not being proceeded with. 

1. I would dismiss the appeal.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Chief Justice Higgins.

Associate:

Date:    21 May 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 6 - 2011
  )          No. SCC 278 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ADRIAN ROGER LEACH

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Refshauge and Lander JJ
Date:  6 May 2012
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

REFSHAUGE J:

1. I agree with the Chief Justice.  In my view, there is no error shown in her Honour’s reasoning or in the sentence which might, even on the most favourable view of the events and the lead up to those events, suggest that the sentence was manifestly excessive.  Indeed, it might be said to be at the more lenient end of the sentencing range appropriate to the circumstances. 

1. There has been no matter of a defence raised by Mr Leach that has any basis in either the material before Penfold J or any of the other material to which Mr Leach has referred and which he has attempted to have taken into account in this matter. 

1. Indeed, the only matter of defence referred to by him in relation to the possibility of automatism is expressly contradicted by the helpful and comprehensive report of Dr Steven Allnut.  In my view, there is no substance in any of the grounds sought to be raised by Mr Leach either on the appeal or in the other material for which, in my view, leave to adduce has quite properly not been granted.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Refshauge.

Associate:

Date:    21 May 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 6 - 2011
  )          No. SCC 278 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ADRIAN ROGER LEACH

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Refshauge and Lander JJ
Date:  6 May 2012
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LANDER J:

1. These events occurred nearly four years ago.  The sentence was imposed shortly after the appellant pleaded guilty and nearly 33 months after the offences were committed.  This appeal was heard 15 months after the sentence was imposed. 

1. The appellant’s claim that he has not had time to investigate the possibility of a defence or to produce evidence in support of his claim that the sentence is manifestly excessive must be rejected.

1. Indeed, the claim that the sentence was manifestly excessive must also be rejected.  I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Lander.

Associate:

Date:    21 May 2012

Counsel for the Appellant:  Self Represented
Counsel for the Respondent:  Mr J White
Solicitor for the Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions for the ACT
Date of hearing:  4 May 2012
Date of judgment:  4 May 2012