SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Fairclough |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 215 |
Hearing Date: | 20 May 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 19 August 2019 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | See [52] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Application to withdraw plea of guilty – whether the plea demonstrated a consciousness of guilt – whether the applicant had a sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts and law – consideration of Gee v Hulbert & Ors [2002] ACTSC 118 |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 49 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) |
Cases Cited: | Carey v The Queen (1990) 20 NSWLR 292 Caruso v The Queen (1988) 49 SASR 465 Toro-Martinez v The Queen [2000] NSWCCA 216; 114 A Crim R 533 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown/Respondent) Christian Fairclough (Accused/Applicant) |
Representation: | Counsel A Williamson (Crown/Respondent) J Masters (Accused/Applicant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown/Respondent) Marjason & Marjason Solicitors (Accused/Applicant) | |
File Number: | SCC 91 of 2016 |
BURNS J:
On 3 May 2016 the applicant was committed for trial on three charges. On 2 June 2016 the Crown lodged an indictment dated 1 June 2016 containing two counts:
Count 1: That on 12 February 2016 he intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on Samuel Clements.
Count 2: That on 12 February 2016 he intentionally and unlawfully used against Samuel Clements an offensive weapon likely to endanger human life or cause a person grievous bodily harm, namely a knife.
The applicant was initially scheduled to stand trial in the week commencing 20 March 2017, however the matter was not reached and was adjourned for the trial to commence at a later date. Subsequently, a trial date of 17 July 2017 was fixed. This date was later varied to 18 July 2017. On 18 July 2017 the applicant appeared, represented by counsel, before Murrell CJ. The applicant entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 on the indictment of 1 June 2016, and this plea was accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment. Her Honour listed the matter for sentence before Elkaim J on 15 September 2017 and released the applicant on bail.
On 11 September 2017 the applicant’s lawyers sought leave to withdraw from the proceeding, as the applicant had been arrested and remanded in custody in Victoria. The sentence hearing date of 15 September 2017 was vacated, and the matter was adjourned to 23 October 2017 for mention.…
Continue reading R v Fairclough
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Fairclough [2019] ACTSC 215
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 215
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the defendant's plea was a clear and unequivocal admission of guilt, as required by the principles of criminal law. It examined the defendant's statements and actions leading up to the plea, assessing whether they reflected a true acceptance of responsibility. The court also evaluated the defendant's understanding of the charges, the potential penalties, and the rights he was waiving by entering a guilty plea. The reasoning hinged on whether the defendant's plea was made voluntarily and with an understanding of the legal implications.
Ultimately, the court found that the defendant's plea was valid and that he had demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. The defendant had shown a clear understanding of the facts and the legal consequences of his plea. Consequently, the application to withdraw the guilty plea was dismissed. The final orders of the court confirmed the defendant's plea as valid and proceeded with the case on that basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [52]
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.