R v Beattie - [2000] NSWCCA 201

CITATION: R v Beattie [2000] NSWCCA 201

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60279/99

HEARING DATE(S): 15/05/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v John Patrick Beattie

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 25; Heydon JA at 24; James J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 93/11/1411

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gallen DCJ

COUNSEL : L Lamprati - Crown
In Person - Appellant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
-

DECISION: Application for an extension of time refused

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60279/99

SPIGELMAN CJ
HEYDON JA
JAMES J
Monday, 15 May 2000

REGINA v JOHN PATRICK BEATTIE
JUDGMENT

1   SPIGELMAN CJ: I invite James J to deliver the first judgment.
2   JAMES J: John Patrick Beattie has applied for an extension of time in which to appeal against his conviction on one count of breaking, entering and stealing and, if an extension of time is granted, he appeals against his conviction. Mr Beattie has appeared in person on this application but was legally represented at first instance.
3   The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to the charge of breaking, entering and stealing and was convicted and sentenced as long ago as 17 February 1994. He was sentenced by his Honour Judge Gallen to a sentence of three years, consisting of a minimum term of one year commencing on 29 March 1999 and expiring on 28 March 2000 and an additional term of two years. The applicant also seeks an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by Judge Gallen.
4   According to the prosecution evidence, the offence to which the applicant pleaded guilty before Judge Gallen was committed between 3 January 1993 and 10 January 1993. Between those dates the victim of the offence and his family had been away from their home on a holiday. When they returned from the holiday on 10 January 1993 the victim noticed signs of a forcible entry into the house and, in particular, a forcible entry through a window at the rear of the house. It was discovered that a number of items of property were missing from the house.
5   A police fingerprint expert, Sergeant Wilson, succeeded in developing fingerprints on two pieces of glass from the broken window at the rear of the house. Another police fingerprint expert, Sergeant Watson, on comparing photographs of the fingerprints developed from the two pieces of broken glass with fingerprints taken from the applicant, found that a fingerprint on each of the two pieces of glass matched the print of one of the applicant's fingers. This fingerprint evidence was the basis of the prosecution case against the applicant.
6   On 1 April 1993 a police officer, Detective Sergeant Thomas, who was the police officer in charge of the investigation, spoke to the applicant at a police station. According to Detective Sergeant Thomas's statement, he put to the applicant the allegation that the applicant had been responsible for the…

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 Beattie

Details

AGLC: R v Beattie [2000] NSWCCA 201
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 201
Decision Date: 15 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v John Patrick Beattie, the applicant, John Patrick Beattie, sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction for breaking, entering, and stealing, as well as the sentence imposed by the District Court. The applicant had been convicted and sentenced by Judge Gallen on 17 February 1994. The key issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against his conviction and sentence, given the significant delay in lodging the appeal.

The Court considered the applicant's explanation for the delay, which was based on the subsequent conviction of Detective Sergeant Thomas, the police officer in charge of the investigation, for serious offences including perverting the course of justice, perjury, and corruptly receiving commissions. The applicant also claimed that he had pleaded guilty due to pressure from his solicitor, Mr Goldberg, who allegedly told him that no one would believe him over Detective Sergeant Thomas. Additionally, the applicant pointed out a discrepancy in the dates provided by Detective Sergeant Thomas regarding when the fingerprints were obtained and compared.

The Court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory. It noted that the applicant had a substantial criminal history and had pleaded guilty after a sentence indication hearing, represented by an experienced criminal lawyer. The Court also found no merit in the applicant's claim that he did not understand the nature of the charge or the effect of a plea of guilty. The Court concluded that if an extension of time was granted, the appeal would likely not succeed. Therefore, the application for an extension of time was refused.

The Court's order was that the application for an extension of time to appeal against the conviction and sentence was refused.

Orders