Newland v The Queen - [2018] WASCA 124

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   NEWLAND -v- THE QUEEN [2018] WASCA 124
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA
BEECH JA

HEARD:   20 FEBRUARY 2018 & 10 APRIL 2018
DELIVERED          :   11 MAY 2018
PUBLISHED           :   27 JULY 2018
FILE NO/S:   CACR 203 of 2017
BETWEEN:   ROBERT BRUCE NEWLAND
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CACR 31 of 2018
BETWEEN: ROBERT BRUCE NEWLAND
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   KENNEDY J
File Number             :   INS 104 of 1988, INS 110 of 1988

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Extension of time to appeal - Pleas of guilty - Whether the appellant could not in law, on the admitted facts, have been guilty of two of the offences with which he was charged - Whether this court is empowered, in the circumstances, to enter judgments of conviction for alternative offences

Criminal law - Appeal against an order made for the appellant's indefinite detention - Extension of time to appeal - Whether the sentencing judge erred in law in ordering that, at the expiration of a finite term of imprisonment, the appellant be detained during the Governor's pleasure pursuant to s 662(a) (repealed) of the Criminal Code (WA)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(5)
Criminal Code (WA), s 324E (repealed), s 324F (repealed), s 662(a) (repealed)

Result:

CACR 203 of 2017
Application for an extension of time to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentencing decision of the sentencing judge set aside
Appellant resentenced

CACR 31 of 2018
Application for an extension of time to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Judgments of conviction on the count in indictment INS 104 of 1988 and on count 3 in indictment INS 110 of 1988 set aside
Judgments of acquittal entered on those counts

Category: B

Representation:

CACR 203 of 2017

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms K J Farley SC on 20 February 2018; Ms K J Farley SC & Mr B Meshgin on 10 April 2018
Respondent	:	Ms A L Forrester SC & Ms G N Beggs on 20 February 2018; Mr J A Scholz & Ms G N Beggs on 10 April 2018

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid WA
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

CACR 31 of 2018

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms K J Farley SC & Mr B Meshgin
Respondent	:	Mr J A Scholz & Ms G N Beggs

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid WA
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chester v The Queen [1988] HCA 62; (1988) 165 CLR 611
DAL v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 246; (2006) 33 WAR 143
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference under s 693A of the Criminal Code (No 1 of 1992) v 'M'; Director of Public Prosecutions Reference under s 693A of the Criminal Code (No 1 of 1993) v…

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 Newland v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Newland v The Queen [2018] WASCA 124
Case: [2018] WASCA 124
Decision Date: 27 JULY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved Newland, who was appealing against both his conviction and the order for his indefinite detention following the expiration of a finite term of imprisonment. The crux of the appeal was the contention that Newland could not, on the admitted facts, have been guilty of two of the offences with which he was charged. Furthermore, the appeal sought an extension of time to appeal and questioned whether the sentencing judge had erred in ordering indefinite detention.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the validity of the convictions, the court's authority to enter judgments of conviction for alternative offences, and the correctness of the sentencing judge's decision regarding indefinite detention. The appellant argued that on the admitted facts, he could not be guilty of two specific offences, thus questioning the validity of his convictions. Additionally, the court was asked to consider whether it had the power to substitute alternative convictions and whether the indefinite detention order was legally sound.

The court found that on the admitted facts, Newland could not have been guilty of two of the offences charged. However, the court was not empowered to enter judgments of conviction for alternative offences in such circumstances. Regarding the indefinite detention order, the court concluded that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in law. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was upheld to the extent of the two offences, and the appeal against the indefinite detention order was allowed. The court's decision resulted in Newland being re-sentenced for the valid offences and the indefinite detention order being quashed.

Orders