R v Boyle - [2012] ACTSC 69

R v MICHAEL SHANE BOYLE
[2012] ACTSC 69 (11 May 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – application to withdraw plea of guilty – further evidence put before the Court – no grounds supporting withdrawal of plea satisfied – the application is refused

Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472
R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218

No. SCC 153 of 2010

Judge: Burns J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 11 May 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 153 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R
v
MICHAEL SHANE BOYLE

REASONS FOR DECISION

Judge:  Burns J
Date:  11 May 2012
Place:  Canberra

On 15 February 2011 the accused was arraigned on an indictment dated 30 June 2010 containing five counts of aiding and abetting Nu-Steel Homes ACT Pty Ltd, by deception, obtaining a financial advantage. To each count he entered a plea of not guilty. The trial of these charges was listed to commence on 5 December 2011. Subsequently, that date was varied to 6 December 2011.

On 6 December 2011 the accused was arraigned on a further indictment dated 6 December 2011 in substitution for the earlier indictment. This indictment contained three counts of aiding and abetting Nu-Steel Homes ACT Pty Ltd, by deception, dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage. To each of these charges he entered pleas of guilty. He also requested I take into account two further charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contained in a List of Additional Offences. At the request of his counsel, Mr Sabharwal, I spoke directly to the accused at the time of his arraignment and confirmed that he understood the charges and was entering his pleas of his own free will. The matter was adjourned for sentence on 27 January 2012.

On 15 December 2011 the matter came before Refshauge J who granted Legal Aid ACT leave to withdraw as the accused’s solicitors on the record, and directed that if the accused proposed to seek leave to withdraw his pleas he was to file and serve an application by 20 January 2012 together with any affidavits upon which he proposed to rely.

On 27 January 2012 the accused again appeared before me represented by Mr Sabharwal. The accused did not apply for leave to withdraw his pleas, and withdrew an affidavit sworn by him on 20 January 2012, apparently intended to support an application for leave to withdraw his guilty pleas. I will refer in greater detail to the content of that affidavit later in these reasons. The matter was further adjourned to 16 March 2012 for sentence.

On 16 March the accused’s lawyers were granted leave to withdraw from the matter as the accused wished to pursue his application to withdraw his guilty pleas. The matter was adjourned to 30 March 2012 for hearing of the accused’s application to withdraw his guilty pleas.

On 30 March I heard the accused’s application and refused leave to withdraw his pleas. I indicated that I would publish reasons at…

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 Boyle

Details

AGLC: R v Boyle [2012] ACTSC 69
Case: [2012] ACTSC 69
Decision Date: May 11, 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Boyle was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The defendant, Boyle, had entered a plea of guilty to a criminal offence. Subsequently, Boyle applied to withdraw the plea, citing the introduction of additional evidence. The court was required to determine whether the application to withdraw the plea should be granted. This involved assessing whether the new evidence was such that it would likely have led to a different outcome had it been available at the time the plea was entered.

The court examined the nature of the new evidence and whether it had the potential to undermine the voluntariness of the plea or lead to an acquittal. The court considered that the new evidence did not meet the threshold required for it to be considered significant enough to justify allowing the plea to be withdrawn. The court noted that the new evidence did not establish a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt or suggest that the plea was not entered voluntarily. Consequently, the application to withdraw the plea was dismissed.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the plea process and the potential consequences of allowing such applications on a casual basis. The court found that the new evidence did not provide any grounds that would satisfy the criteria for allowing the withdrawal of the plea. The court's ruling confirmed the defendant's plea of guilty, and the matter proceeded to sentencing.

Orders