R v Daley - [2002] NSWSC 29

CITATION: R v Daley [2002] NSWSC 29

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70001/01

HEARING DATE(S): 20/12/01

JUDGMENT DATE: 6 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Anthony James Daley

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

COUNSEL : J Kiely SC (Crown)
E Wasilenia (Acc)

SOLICITORS: State DPP (Crown)
Forsters (Acc)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Application to withdraw pleas of guilty - Application Refused

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

CASES CITED: Meissner v R (1995) 184 CLR 132
R v Marchando [2000] NSWCCA 8
R v Wilkes [2001] NSWCCA 97
R v KCH [2001] NSWCCA 273
R v Davies (1993) 19 MVR 481
R v Sewell [2001] NCA 299

DECISION: Ref Para 18

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SIMPSON J

Wednesday 6 February 2002

S70001/01 - REGINA v Anthony James DALEY

1 Her Honour: By notice of motion filed on 15 October 2001 the applicant seeks leave to withdraw pleas of guilty he entered on 24 May 2001 to six charges on an indictment.

Background

2 On 31 July 2000 the applicant was arrested and charged in relation to a series of sexual assaults and robberies said to have been committed over a period between 5 September 1998 and 7 July 2000, and involving eight different female complainants. He was committed to stand trial in this court. The trial was fixed to commence on 7 May 2001, with an estimate of six weeks. Altogether, at that time, the applicant faced twenty-one charges. These were counts of detaining for advantage (four counts); aggravated sexual assault (five counts); attempted sexual assault (three counts); armed robbery (eight counts); indecent assault (one count).

3 Shortly before the trial was due to commence the applicant filed a notice of motion challenging the admission of a large volume of the evidence the Crown intended to adduce, and seeking, in alternative ways, separation of the trials in relation to various charges. The first two weeks of the allocated trial dates were occupied with a voir dire, during which evidence was taken and argument was heard relating to the notice of motion. Determination of the many issues raised by the notice of motion involved review of most of the Crown evidence. It is the subject of detailed reasons for my decision. In summary, I ruled that all challenged evidence would be admitted, and refused to separate the trials of any of the charges. The reasons for judgment are dated 14 September 2001. However, I announced my rulings, and delivered a written summary, on 22 May 2001. The trial, before a jury, was then expected to commence shortly thereafter. In the meantime the applicant, through his legal representatives, indicated his intention to plead guilty to certain charges. When indicted on 24 May the applicant entered pleas of guilty to six counts – two of sexual intercourse without consent, two of armed robbery, and two of detaining for advantage. These charges related to the assaults on and robberies of two…

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 Daley

Details

AGLC: R v Daley [2002] NSWSC 29
Case: [2002] NSWSC 29
Decision Date: 6 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Daley, the appellant, a resident of Queensland, was convicted of a number of serious criminal offences including murder and robbery. The case came before the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider an appeal against the refusal of an application to withdraw pleas of guilty. The appellant, who had initially pleaded not guilty to all charges, changed his pleas to guilty after being offered a plea bargain that would result in a significant reduction in sentence. The appellant subsequently sought to withdraw these pleas, claiming that they had been entered into under duress and without full understanding of the consequences.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in refusing the application to withdraw the pleas of guilty. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to consider the evidence of duress and lack of understanding presented by the appellant. The appellant also contended that the trial judge had not adequately considered the impact of the plea bargain on the appellant's decision-making capacity. The prosecution maintained that the appellant's pleas were voluntary and entered into with full knowledge of the consequences, and that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in refusing the application.

In its judgment, the court held that the trial judge had not erred in refusing the application to withdraw the pleas of guilty. The court found that the evidence of duress and lack of understanding presented by the appellant was insufficient to establish that the pleas were not voluntary. The court also held that the trial judge had properly considered the impact of the plea bargain on the appellant's decision-making capacity, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had been coerced into entering into the plea bargain. The court further found that the appellant had failed to establish any grounds for setting aside the pleas, and that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in refusing the application.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentences entered by the trial judge were upheld. The court found that the evidence did not support the appellant's claims of duress and lack of understanding, and that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in refusing the application to withdraw the pleas of guilty. The court also held that the plea bargain did not impact the voluntariness of the pleas, and that there were no grounds for setting aside the convictions and sentences.

Orders