R v Dobie - [2010] QCA 34

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dobie [2010] QCA 34

PARTIES:

R
v
DOBIE, Keith William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 338 of 2009
DC No 1221 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

26 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 February 2010

JUDGE:

Chief Justice and Holmes and Muir JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE AND CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons (counts 1 and 2), dealing in the proceeds of crime in an amount exceeding $10,000 (count 3) and presenting a false document (counts 4 to 7) – where applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against his convictions for all offences – whether a prior appeal against conviction for counts 1 and 2 deprived the Court of jurisdiction to hear a further appeal on those counts – whether applicant’s pleas of guilty could be set aside – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.2(1), s 271.2(2B),
s 400.6(1)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 234(1)(a)

Liberti v R (1991) 55 Crim R 120, cited
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied
R v MAM[2005] QCA 323, cited
R v Nudd[2007] QCA 40, cited
R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 Qd R 601, [1996] QCA 235, cited
R v Senior[2005] QCA 21, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G R Rice SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Muir JA. I agree that the application should be refused, for those reasons.

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Muir JA and the order he proposes.

MUIR JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to the offences on a seven count indictment and was sentenced in the District Court on 23 December 2008 to: four years imprisonment for each of counts 1 and 2 (trafficking in persons)[1], 12 months imprisonment for count 3 (dealing in proceeds of crime in an amount exceeding $10,000)[2] and for each of counts 4 to 7 inclusive (presenting a false document)[3]. The terms of imprisonment imposed for counts 1 to 5 inclusive were ordered to be served concurrently but the concurrent sentences for counts 6 and 7 were ordered to be served cumulatively on the sentences for counts 1 and 2.
[1]s 271.2(2B) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
[2]s 400.6(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
[3]s 234(1)(a) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and s 11.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

On or prior…

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 Dobie

Details

AGLC: R v Dobie [2010] QCA 34
Case: [2010] QCA 34
Decision Date: 26 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Dobie, sought an extension of time to appeal against his convictions on several counts, including trafficking in persons, dealing in the proceeds of crime, and presenting a false document. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia. The key legal issue was whether a previous appeal against conviction on two of the counts deprived the Court of jurisdiction to hear a further appeal on those counts. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's pleas of guilty could be set aside due to a possible miscarriage of justice.

The High Court examined the principles governing appeals against convictions entered by way of guilty plea. The Court noted that an appeal against conviction on the basis of a miscarriage of justice is a narrow and exceptional remedy. The Court held that the applicant's prior appeal against conviction on counts 1 and 2 did not deprive it of jurisdiction to hear a further appeal on those counts, as the jurisdiction to hear such an appeal does not depend on the outcome of a prior appeal. However, the Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any ground that would justify setting aside his pleas of guilty, nor had he shown that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Court concluded that there was no basis for allowing the appeal against conviction.

The High Court dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal against the convictions. The Court's decision emphasised the stringent criteria required for setting aside pleas of guilty and allowing an appeal against conviction in such circumstances. The Court's judgment reinforced the principle that appeals against conviction on the basis of a miscarriage of justice are rare and should only be granted in exceptional cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Dobie [2010] QCA 34
PARTIES:	R v DOBIE, Keith William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 338 of 2009 DC No 1221 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	26 February 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 February 2010
JUDGE:	Chief Justice and Holmes and Muir JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE AND CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons (counts 1 and 2), dealing in the proceeds of crime in an amount exceeding $10,000 (count 3) and presenting a false document (counts 4 to 7) – where applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against his convictions for all offences – whether a prior appeal against conviction for counts 1 and 2 deprived the Court of jurisdiction to hear a further appeal on those counts – whether applicant’s pleas of guilty could be set aside – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.2(1), s 271.2(2B), s 400.6(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 234(1)(a) Liberti v R (1991) 55 Crim R 120, cited Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied R v MAM[2005] QCA 323, cited R v Nudd[2007] QCA 40, cited R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 Qd R 601, [1996] QCA 235, cited R v Senior[2005] QCA 21, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G R Rice SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent