Mao v Ellston - [2025] ACTSC 18

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Mao v Ellston
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 18
Hearing Date:	4 February 2025
Decision Date:	7 February 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	(1) The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – appeal alleging conviction based upon plea of guilty involved miscarriage of justice – where appellant agreed to plead guilty to two of six charges in family violence matter – whether appellant understood the nature of the charges pleaded to – whether appellant sufficiently understood the facts admitted by the plea – miscarriage of justice not established
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 17 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24(1), 26(1), 27-28, 30 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 214(3)(b)
Cases Cited:	Decision Restricted [2024] ACTSC 285 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 R v Gomez [2007] ACTCA 21; 1 ACTLR 145 White v R [2022] NSWCCA 241; 110 NSWLR 163
Parties:	Yexin Mao ( Appellant) Ashlea Ellston ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel D Petrushnko ( Appellant) S McFarland ( Respondent)
Solicitors Brightstone Legal (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 64 of 2023
Decision Under Appeal:	Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court of the ACT Before: Special Magistrate Christensen Date of Decision: 1 August 2023 Case Title: Ellston v Mao Court File Number(s): CAN 9799 of 2022 CAN 9802 of 2022

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․This is an appeal by Yexin Mao from his conviction and sentence on a charge of common assault and a charge of choking, suffocating or strangling another person contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). He contends that the convictions constitute a miscarriage of justice because of the circumstances in which he entered pleas of guilty. He submitted that the convictions should be set aside, and the proceedings remitted to the Magistrates Court for rehearing.
2․For the reasons that follow, no miscarriage of justice has been established and the appeal must be dismissed.

Background facts

3․Although the original Statement of Facts recording the allegations made by the informant were not before the court on the appeal, the allegations giving rise to the proceedings in the Magistrates Court were accurately summarised in the respondent’s written submissions as follows:
The victim of the offences was the appellant’s partner … with whom the appellant had been in a relationship for approximately two years. In the afternoon of 5 October 2022, the appellant and the victim were in their apartment when they began to have a verbal argument. The victim approached the appellant as he was packing away some electronic chargers into a bag. The victim grabbed one of the chargers and threw … [it] across the room. The appellant then grabbed the victim by the neck with his hands which caused immediate redness and swelling to her neck.
The victim was scared and ran to the kitchen, arming herself with a knife. The appellant saw the victim had a knife and ran at her…

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 Mao v Ellston

Details

AGLC: Mao v Ellston [2025] ACTSC 18
Case: [2025] ACTSC 18
Decision Date: 7 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mao appealed against his conviction in the ACT Magistrates Court, asserting that the plea of guilty entered in relation to two of six charges arising from a family violence matter amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant contended that he did not understand the nature of the charges to which he was pleading guilty, nor did he fully comprehend the facts he was admitting by entering the plea. Consequently, Mao submitted that the trial judge should have intervened to ensure that his plea was made with the requisite understanding. The central legal issue for the court was whether the appellant's plea was entered with a sufficient understanding of the charges and the facts admitted, thereby ensuring a just outcome. The court reviewed the record of the plea proceedings and the submissions made by the appellant at the time of the plea. It found that the trial judge had properly explained the charges and the consequences of the plea to the appellant, who had indicated that he understood these explanations. The court also considered the appellant's responses during the plea hearing, which demonstrated his comprehension of the charges and the facts. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appellant had entered his plea of guilty with a full understanding of its implications, and thus the appeal was dismissed. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

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.