R v Coker - [2013] QCA 315

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Coker [2013] QCA 315

PARTIES:

R
v
COKER, Mohamed
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 285 of 2012
DC No 678 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 August 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and Atkinson and North JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – where he appeals his conviction on the basis that the plea of guilty was not entered in the exercise of a free choice, contending that he did not understand the nature of the plea or the charge and did not intend to admit that he was guilty – where the appellant asserted that his former counsel refused to request an interpreter for him, pressured him to plead guilty and did not explain to him the document recording his instructions to plead guilty – where on appeal both the appellant and his former counsel gave evidence, the appellant conceding that he had pleaded guilty to avoid a more severe sentence – whether the appellant was aware of the charge – whether any improper pressure was applied to the appellant – whether the appellant pleaded guilty in the exercise of a free choice – where the appellant had given inconsistent accounts of his possession and use of a knife in the altercation and had not given his former counsel any instructions to suggest he had used the knife in self-defence – whether there was a viable excuse of self-defence – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to four years and three months imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date set after 21 months – where the applicant went to a pre-arranged fight armed with a knife and used it – where the complainant was 13 years old and suffered a life-threatening injury – where the sentencing judge recognised the applicant’s youth, lack of prior convictions, traumatic background and that he and his partner were expecting their first child – where the applicant had shown no remorse, and entered a late plea on the first day set for the trial – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
R v Baker[2012] QCA 237, cited
R v Brand[2006] QCA 525, cited
R v Laing[2003] QCA…

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 Coker

Details

AGLC: R v Coker [2013] QCA 315
Case: [2013] QCA 315
Decision Date: 25 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Coker, appealed against his conviction and sentence for grievous bodily harm. He pleaded guilty to the charge but argued that his plea was not entered in the exercise of a free choice, as he did not understand the nature of the plea or the charge, and did not intend to admit guilt. He claimed his former counsel refused to request an interpreter for him, pressured him to plead guilty, and did not explain the document recording his instructions. The appellant conceded on appeal that he had pleaded guilty to avoid a more severe sentence. The court had to determine if the appellant was aware of the charge, if any improper pressure was applied, if he pleaded guilty in the exercise of a free choice, and if there was a viable excuse of self-defence.

The court found that the appellant was aware of the charge and that no improper pressure was applied. The appellant’s former counsel’s evidence was accepted over the appellant’s. The court found the appellant was not pressured into pleading guilty and that he pleaded guilty in the exercise of a free choice. The court also found that there was no viable excuse of self-defence, as the appellant had given inconsistent accounts of his possession and use of a knife in the altercation, and had not given his former counsel any instructions to suggest he had used the knife in self-defence. The court found no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant’s youth, lack of prior convictions, traumatic background, and the fact that he and his partner were expecting their first child. The court noted, however, that the appellant had shown no remorse and entered a late plea on the first day set for the trial.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Coker [2013] QCA 315
PARTIES:	R v COKER, Mohamed (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 285 of 2012 DC No 678 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 August 2013
JUDGES:	Holmes JA and Atkinson and North JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – where he appeals his conviction on the basis that the plea of guilty was not entered in the exercise of a free choice, contending that he did not understand the nature of the plea or the charge and did not intend to admit that he was guilty – where the appellant asserted that his former counsel refused to request an interpreter for him, pressured him to plead guilty and did not explain to him the document recording his instructions to plead guilty – where on appeal both the appellant and his former counsel gave evidence, the appellant conceding that he had pleaded guilty to avoid a more severe sentence – whether the appellant was aware of the charge – whether any improper pressure was applied to the appellant – whether the appellant pleaded guilty in the exercise of a free choice – where the appellant had given inconsistent accounts of his possession and use of a knife in the altercation and had not given his former counsel any instructions to suggest he had used the knife in self-defence – whether there was a viable excuse of self-defence – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to four years and three months imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date set after 21 months – where the applicant went to a pre-arranged fight armed with a knife and used it – where the complainant was 13 years old and suffered a life-threatening injury – where the sentencing judge recognised the applicant’s youth, lack of prior convictions, traumatic background and that he and his partner were expecting their first child – where the applicant had shown no remorse, and entered a late plea on the first day set for the trial – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited R v Baker[2012] QCA 237, cited R v Brand[2006] QCA 525, cited R v Laing[2003] QCA…