Price v Davies - [2001] WASCA 81

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: PRICE -v- DAVIES [2001] WASCA 81

CORAM: ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD: 13 & 23 FEBRUARY 2001

DELIVERED : 16 MARCH 2001

FILE NO/S: SJA 1136 of 2000

BETWEEN: GREGORY LEWIS PRICE
Appellant
AND
DALE ASTON DAVIES
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Cultivating cannabis with intent to sell or supply - Unequivocal plea of guilty - Made in belief statutory presumption of intent irrebutable - Whether miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Justices Act 1902, s 138, s 186(1), s 196(1)

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 11

Result:

Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
Complaint remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for trial of issue

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R A Mazza
Respondent: Mr M Mischin

Solicitors:

Appellant: Alex Palumbo
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Collins (1993) 67 A Crim R 104
Lamb v Clews (1989) 10 MVR 465
Lutter v Davis (1992) 7 WAR 72
Murray v Northcott [1990] WAR 219

Case(s) also cited:

Boag (1994) 73 A Crim R 35
Sagir (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
Thomason v Martin [1964] WAR 136
Tihanyi v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 377

ROBERTS-SMITH J: By leave granted by Miller J on 14 November 2000, the appellant appeals from the decision of his Worship M D Wheeler SM in the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions on 19 May 2000, sentencing the applicant to 18 months imprisonment with parole following his plea of guilty to one charge of cultivating cannabis with intent to sell or supply. The grounds of appeal were originally that:
"(a)The [appellant] is not guilty as charged;
(b)The [appellant] has been made aware of an error on his part in pleading guilty which constitutes fresh evidence."
The appellant had filed a notice of application to extend time to appeal and for bail pending appeal on 22 August 2000. Leave to extend time was given and bail was granted by Templeman J on 25 August 2000. The time for appealing was extended to 29 August. On 28 August the parties filed a memorandum of consent orders pursuant to O 43 r 16 of the Rules of the Supreme Court that time for entry of the appeal be extended to 30 November.
At the outset of the hearing before me, Mr Mazza, who appeared for the appellant, sought and was given leave to substitute new grounds of appeal. They were in the following terms:
"1.The decision of the learned magistrate to convict the appellant upon the appellant's plea of guilty should be reviewed and quashed because:
1.1the entry of the plea of guilty was brought about by error or misapprehension;
Particulars
1.1.1The appellant believed that because he had cultivated 47 cannabis plants he was presumed to have done so with an intent to sell or supply.
1.1.2The appellant did not appreciate that notwithstanding that he had grown 47 cannabis plants he could rebut the presumption by proving, on the balance of probabilities, that he did…

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 Price v Davies

Details

AGLC: Price v Davies [2001] WASCA 81
Case: [2001] WASCA 81
Decision Date: 16 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Price v Davies, the appellant sought to appeal his conviction and sentence for cultivating cannabis with intent to sell or supply, which he pleaded guilty to. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that, at the time he entered his plea, he was labouring under a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and believed the statutory presumption of intent was irrebutable. He claimed that this misunderstanding led to a miscarriage of justice and that the trial judge erred in failing to intervene to prevent the plea being entered.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's unequivocal plea of guilty, entered in the belief that the statutory presumption of intent was irrebutable, could be set aside on the ground that this belief constituted a fundamental legal error. The court was required to determine whether such a plea could be considered invalid and whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Additionally, the court needed to examine the appropriate remedy if a miscarriage of justice was found to have occurred.

The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and that, at the time, he believed the statutory presumption of intent was irrebutable. However, the court held that this belief did not render the plea invalid. The court reasoned that, while the appellant's understanding of the law was incorrect, it did not amount to a fundamental legal error that would invalidate the plea. The court also held that, even if the appellant's belief constituted a fundamental legal error, it did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the appellant's belief did not influence the sentence imposed and that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders