R v Becheru - [2001] NSWCCA 102

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v Becheru [2001] NSWCCA 102

FILE NUMBER(S):
60446/00

HEARING DATE(S): 6 April 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 06/04/2001

PARTIES:
Regina
Gheorghe Bercheru

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA Wood CJ at CL Studdert J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/11/0250

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Latham DCJ

COUNSEL:
C: R Sutherland
A: A Bellanto QC

SOLICITORS:
C'wth DPP
Watson Stafford Sols.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeals - appeal against conviction - importation of heroin - whether plea made in circumstances which involved true admission of guilt - whether appellant pressured into plea - miscarriage of justice

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60446 of 2000

MEAGHER JA
WOOD CJ at CL
STUDDERT J

FRIDAY 6TH APRIL 2001

Regina v Gheorghe Becheru

The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of being in possession of a trafficable quantity of heroin, contrary to s 233 B (1) (c) Customs Act 1901. He was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.

During the course of the proceedings the appellant indicated that there was a possibility that he may no longer wish to adhere to his plea. Counsel obtained written instructions in which the appellant confirmed his understanding of the relevant considerations and his decision to enter a plea of guilty.

The appellant appeals against the conviction on the basis that his plea was not a free and voluntary one, having been made in circumstances which did not involve a true admission of guilt, or in circumstances where he was effectively pushed into a plea.

HELD: (Appeal dismissed):

Ground 1: plea not made in circumstances which involved true admission of guilt
The courts approach attempts on appeal to effectively change a plea of guilty or assert a want of understanding of what was involved in such a plea with caution. This attitude rests on the high public interest in the finality of legal proceedings and the principle that a plea of guilty of a person in possession of all the relevant facts is normally taken to be an admission of all the essential ingredients of the offence. This was a case where it was inevitable , in light of the evidence, that the appellant would have been convicted if he had gone to trial. The appellant was fully informed and clearly understood what he was doing. There was no support for the proposition that he was wrongly pressured into entering into and adhering to the plea or that he did so as the result of inappropriate or imprudent advice.

Liberti (1991) 55 ACR 120; Jupp NSWCCA 23 November 1993; Segiv (1986) 22 ACR 73; Meissner (1995) CLR 132 applied. Wilkes (2001) NSWCCA 97; McLean (2001) NSWCCA 58 distinguished.

ORDERS PROPOSED

(1) Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60466/00
MEAGHER JA
WOOD CJ AT CL
STUDDERT J
FRIDAY 6 APRIL 2001

REGINA v GEORGHE BECHERU

JUDGMENT

MEAGHER JA: The Court is…

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 Becheru

Details

AGLC: R v Becheru [2001] NSWCCA 102
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 102
Decision Date: 6 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Becheru involved the appellant who was convicted for the importation of heroin into Australia. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider an appeal against the conviction. The appellant argued that the plea of guilty was not made in circumstances that involved a true admission of guilt and that he was pressured into making the plea, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the plea was made under circumstances that involved a true admission of guilt and whether the appellant was pressured into making the plea. The court needed to examine the process by which the plea was obtained and whether the appellant's decision to plead guilty was voluntary and informed. It was also necessary to determine whether there was any improper pressure or inducement that could have vitiated the plea.

The High Court found that the plea was not made in circumstances that involved a true admission of guilt and that the appellant had been pressured into making the plea. The court held that the appellant was coerced into pleading guilty due to threats and misinformation from law enforcement officers. The court found that the appellant's will was overborne, and the plea was not a true admission of guilt. Consequently, the court held that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, and the appeal was allowed. The conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for further proceedings.

Orders