R v Bayliss - [2002] NSWCCA 11

CITATION: R v Bayliss [2002] NSWCCA 11 revised - 25/09/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60713/01

HEARING DATE(S): 30/1/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Gary Bayliss

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sully J at 1; Dowd J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 92/31/0624

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Patten DCJ

COUNSEL : Applicant In Person
L M B Lamprati (Crown)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - application for extension of time for appeal - appeal against conviction and sentence - indecent assault and act of indecency on person under the age of 16 - plea of guilty - duties of legal advisors - plea of guilty not improperly obtained.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act (NSW) 1912: s10(1); s 10 (3)

CASES CITED:
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132
Regina v Boag (1994) 73 A Crim R 35 at 37
Regina v Brehoi [1999] NSWCCA 113
Regina v KCH [2001] NSWCCA 273
Regina v Lawrence [1980] 1 NSWLR 122
Regina v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Regina v O'Donahue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397
Regina v Ross (NSWCCA 20 April 1994)
Regina v Young [1999] NSWCCA 275

DECISION: Leave to appeal out of time refused. Appeal dismissed.

- 18 -IN THE COURT OF

60713/01

WOOD CJ at CL
SULLY J
DOWD J
14 February 2002

Regina v GB

Judgment

1 THE COURT: The applicant has filed a notice of appeal against his conviction in the District Court on 28 February 1994, upon an indictment charging him with one count of indecent assault. By reason of the circumstance that this notice was not filed until 25 September 2001, he requires an order of this Court for an extension of time within which the appeal may be lodged: s10(1) and (3) Criminal Appeal Act (NSW) 1912.

2 In order to determine whether such extension should be granted, it is necessary to review the circumstances in which the conviction came to be recorded, as well as the subsequent history of the proceedings. The material before the Court reveals in this regard that:

(a) The Crown case presented against the appellant was that between 31 August 1990 and 1 November 1990 at Wyoming, he touched the victim (MK) on the vagina from outside her clothing, during a game of hide and seek.

(b) It was also asserted by the Crown that during the course of playing the same game he committed identical offences in relation to two other young girls (LC and LK).

(c) Each offence was alleged to have occurred after he had invited the three girls into the premises where he was living with his parents, having offered them food and drink.

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 R v Bayliss

Details

AGLC: R v Bayliss [2002] NSWCCA 11
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 11
Decision Date: 14 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bayliss involved the appellant, Bayliss, who was convicted and sentenced for committing indecent assault and an act of indecency on a person under the age of sixteen. Bayliss appealed against both his conviction and the sentence imposed. The legal question before the court was whether Bayliss's plea of guilty was properly obtained, considering the advice given to him by his legal representatives. The case was heard in the higher court where Bayliss sought an extension of time for his appeal.

The court examined the nature of the advice provided to Bayliss by his legal representatives concerning his plea. The critical issue was whether the advice was inadequate or misleading, potentially rendering the plea of guilty improperly obtained. The court needed to determine if Bayliss's understanding of his rights and the consequences of pleading guilty was sufficiently informed to ensure the voluntariness and propriety of the plea. This required a detailed analysis of the communication between Bayliss and his legal counsel.

Upon reviewing the evidence and the nature of the advice provided, the court concluded that Bayliss's plea of guilty was not improperly obtained. The court found that Bayliss had a clear understanding of the charges against him and the potential consequences of his plea. The advice given by his legal representatives was deemed adequate, and the plea was considered voluntary. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. The decision was based on the court's assessment that Bayliss's plea was properly informed and that there was no basis to overturn the conviction or sentence.

Orders