R v Boyd

Case [2000] NSWCCA 110 10 August 2000

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R. v. BOYD [2000] NSWCCA 110

FILE NUMBER(S):
60736/98

HEARING DATE(S): 24 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 10/08/2000

PARTIES:
Regina (Respondent)
Gregory Stuart Boyd (Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF: Powell JA Hulme J Dowd J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC92/31/0553

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McGuire DCJ

COUNSEL:
M.C. Marien (Respondent)
G.P. Craddock (Appellant)

SOLICITORS:
S.E. O'Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
T.A. Murphy, Legal Aid Commission (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Plea of guilty - Appeal - Setting aside conviction on appeal after plea of guilty

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal Dismissed.
Conviction and sentence confirmed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CCA 60736/98
DC 92/31/0553
POWELL JA
HULME J
DOWD J
10 August 2000

R. v. BOYD
JUDGMENT

POWELL JA: On 30 May 1994, the Appellant was arraigned before McGuire DCJ in the District Court at Gosford on a charge that, on 23 June 1992, at Long Jetty, New South Wales, he did supply a prohibited drug namely heroin (Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s. 25(1)) - reduced to its essentials, the case which the Crown set out to prove was that on 23 June 1992, when searched by Det. Ison, who was accompanied by Det. Richardson, the Appellant was found to have in the left pocket of his jeans a number of small resealable plastic bags containing white powder, which powder, when analysed, was found to contain heroin, the total weight of the powder being 5.81 grams, that being both a trafficable quantity and an indictable quantity. To that charge the Appellant pleaded not guilty.
30 May 1994 was the second occasion on which the Appellant had been indicted on that charge. On 1 June 1993, the Appellant had been arraigned before Urquhart DCJ on that charge and, as in May 1994, had pleaded not guilty. Following that plea, the Appellant had been tried before Urquhart DCJ and a jury of 12, the trial proceeding into the fifth day when, the jury being unable to reach a verdict, they were discharged.
At the time of the Appellant’s trial in 1993, he was represented by Mr. G. V. Bellamy, then a solicitor of this Court of some 21 years standing and, as I am led to believe, a solicitor of some experience with criminal law and practice.
In an Affidavit sworn by him and tendered on the hearing of this appeal, Mr. Bellamy deposed that the Appellant’s instructions to him throughout the trial before Urquhart DCJ were that he had never been in possession of the heroin said to have been found in his possession and that the drugs had been planted on his person by the arresting police.
The transcript of the oral evidence given by Mr. Bellamy on the hearing of the appeal (T.10) records the following, the relevance of which will shortly appear:
“Q. And, as I understand it, from what I have seen of the transcript or…

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 Boyd

Details

AGLC: R v Boyd [2000] NSWCCA 110
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 110
Decision Date: 10 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Boyd was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Boyd, had entered a guilty plea in relation to a charge of possessing a prohibited weapon. Boyd now appealed against his conviction, seeking to have it set aside despite his earlier plea of guilty. The central issue for the court was whether the conviction could be set aside after a plea of guilty had been entered.

The court considered whether there were exceptional circumstances that would justify setting aside the conviction. Boyd argued that there were procedural errors during the trial which led to a miscarriage of justice. The court evaluated the nature and impact of these alleged errors, assessing whether they were so significant as to warrant setting aside the conviction. The court also examined the principle that a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings.

In its decision, the court determined that the alleged procedural errors did not reach the threshold of exceptional circumstances required to justify setting aside the conviction after a guilty plea. The court held that once a plea of guilty has been entered, it generally operates as a waiver of all procedural defects, unless they go to the jurisdiction of the court. Boyd's appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The court's final order was that the appeal against conviction be dismissed and that the conviction stand as entered. The court emphasised that while it is important to ensure justice is served, the principle of finality inherent in a guilty plea must also be respected.

Orders