Marion Louise Collier v Director of Public Prosecutions

[2011] HCASL 177

MARION LOUISE COLLIER
v
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 177
S265/2011

1. The applicant was convicted in the Local Court at Mudgee on a plea of guilty and sentenced for six traffic offences.  She then appealed to the District Court of New South Wales against her conviction, claiming that she had not pleaded guilty, or, in the alternative, seeking leave to withdraw her pleas of guilty.  Walmsley SC DCJ dismissed the appeal.  He found that the transcript demonstrated that on several occasions the applicant was present in court and made statements indicating that she had pleaded guilty or intended to do so.  He refused leave to withdraw the pleas of guilty because the applicant was present on several occasions after the pleas had been entered, particularly when a sentencing hearing was taking place and she had a solicitor acting for her. 

2. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.  That Court (Hodgson JA, with Campbell JA and Latham J concurring) dismissed the appeal.  Hodgson JA held that it was necessary, for there to be a valid plea of guilty in this case, that the substance of the charges be stated by the Court to the applicant or to a legal practitioner representing her, and it was also necessary that it be conveyed to the Court, either by the applicant personally or by her legal practitioner, that she understood what was charged and unequivocally pleaded guilty to that charge.  Hodgson JA found that the charges were well understood by the applicant and her solicitor, and that the solicitor's statement to the Court that he was instructed to plead guilty when the applicant's matter was called on was a sufficiently unequivocal acknowledgment of guilt.  It could be inferred that the solicitor had been provided with copies of the relevant Court Attendance Notices and the police version of the facts, so that he was well aware of the terms of the charges.  If the solicitor had acted contrary to his instructions, or had misunderstood them, that would not affect the validity of the plea, but would only at best support an application to withdraw it.

3. Hodgson JA held that no error of law had been shown in Walmsley SC DCJ's refusal of leave to withdraw the guilty plea, because it was open to him to find that the transcripts were accurate and to find that the accused's conduct demonstrated an intention to plead guilty.  It was also open to him not to be satisfied that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the pleas were not withdrawn, since the accused's statements as to the merits suggested no viable defence.

4. The papers filed by the applicant in support of her application for special leave to appeal to this Court do not reveal any arguable question of law or other error which would justify a grant of special leave to appeal.

5. The application is dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
26 October 2011 V.M. Bell