R v Donahue Summary | CaseChat AU

[2014] QCA 198

COURT OF APPEAL

MUIR JA
GOTTERSON JA
ANN LYONS J

CA No 299 of 2013
DC No 56 of 2013
DC No 67 of 2013

THE QUEEN

DONAHUE, Algen Clinton Appellant

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 21 AUGUST 2014

JUDGMENT

MUIR JA: The appellant was granted leave to abandon the grounds of appeal in his notice of appeal and to substitute, therefore, the following ground. With respect to count 1 upon indictment 56 of 2013, there has been a miscarriage of justice in respect of the conviction, as the appellant was not and could not in truth be guilty of that offence. The appellant was convicted on 10 September 2013 of his own plea of guilty of 40 property offences, mainly burglary and stealing or attempted burglary. He was 17 years of age. Most of the offending occurred when the appellant was a minor. On many of the counts, the only evidence against him was his own admissions.

The appellant, who was legally represented, was arraigned in bulk. He indicated that he had read each count on the indictment and understood its content. It later emerged that on 11 November 2011, the date count 1 on the indictment, a burglary and stealing offence, was alleged to have been committed, the appellant was in detention. The mistake most probably occurred through the appellant’s willing cooperation with the police on what was described as a drive around interview in which police officers took the appellant to premises known to have been burgled. In admitting the count 1 offence, the appellant was either mistaken about the date or paid it insufficient attention. The respondent properly accepts that it would be an affront to the system of justice to allow the conviction to stand. I agree.

I would order that (1) the appeal be allowed, (2) the plea of guilty to count 1 on indictment 56 of 2013 be set aside, (3) the conviction and sentence on that count be set aside and a verdict of acquittal be entered on that count.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree.

ANN LYONS J: I agree.

MUIR JA: The orders of the Court will be as I have stated. Thank you, gentlemen.

MR RICHARDS: Thank you, your Honours.

MR McCARTHY: Thank you, your Honours.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an appeal from the appellant, Donahue, against his conviction for various property offences, mainly burglary and stealing or attempted burglary. The appellant had pleaded guilty to 40 charges, but later argued that a miscarriage of justice had occurred in relation to count 1 on indictment 56 of 2013. The appellant submitted that he was not guilty of the offence in question, as on the date it was alleged to have occurred, he was in detention. This contention was accepted by the respondent, who acknowledged that allowing the conviction to stand would be an affront to the system of justice.

The legal issues for the Court of Appeal to decide were whether there had been a miscarriage of justice in respect of the conviction for count 1 on indictment 56 of 2013, and if so, what orders should be made to rectify the situation. The appellant argued that he was not guilty of the offence as he was in detention on the date it was alleged to have occurred, and the error was most likely due to his cooperation with police during a drive-around interview. The Court found that the appellant was either mistaken about the date or paid insufficient attention to it when admitting the offence. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appellant's admission was a result of a genuine mistake or a misunderstanding, and whether the conviction should be set aside.

The Court of Appeal found that there had indeed been a miscarriage of justice in respect of the conviction for count 1 on indictment 56 of 2013. The appellant was either mistaken about the date of the offence or paid insufficient attention to it when admitting the offence. The Court found that it would be an affront to the system of justice to allow the conviction to stand. The Court of Appeal set aside the plea of guilty to count 1 on indictment 56 of 2013, the conviction and sentence on that count, and entered a verdict of acquittal on that count. The orders of the Court were as stated by Muir JA.

R v Donahue

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established