R v Hardy - [2009] QDC 142

[2009] QDC 142

DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE SAMIOS

Indictment No 3672 of 2006
THE QUEEN
v.

PAMELA CLAIRE HARDY

BRISBANE
..DATE 19/05/2009

..DAY 1

RULING

1-1

HIS HONOUR: The applicant has been charged in the District

Court on indictment that on the 13th day of December 2005 at

Brisbane in the State of Queensland she assaulted Arveen

Singh, a police officer while Arveen Singh was acting in the

execution of his duty. The applicant pleaded guilty to this	10
charge when arraigned on the 14th of December 2007.
She was represented by solicitors and had two conferences with
a barrister who then appeared for her when she pleaded guilty.
Her sentence was to take place thereafter, however she has	20
changed solicitors and is now seeking to set aside her plea of
guilty. Her affidavit shows that on the date the offence is
alleged to have occurred she denies having spat at the police
officer.	30
She obtained solicitors and says that she told them that she
would plead guilty to the drink driving charge but wanted to
plead not guilty to the other offences. A committal hearing
40
was held on the 14th of September 2006. She obtained the brief of evidence. She noted the statements of the two police
officers. She pointed out inaccuracies in the statements, but
says she was told not to make an issue about that and to stick
to what the police have said because that would be in her	50

favour.
She says she accepted what the solicitor from the solicitors

1-2

RULING

told her because it seemed that the truth was out of her

control and she had let the police and her lawyer have a fight

about the truth of the statement, which she believed was

untrue in many respects. The committal proceedings took place	10
and she was committed for trial. She did not enter any plea
at that stage. The indictment was presented in the District
Court and she says that she met with the solicitor from her
solicitors.
20
The matter was listed for a trial in the week commencing 30
April 2007. She was told she needed a barrister. One was
arranged and she says the one that was arranged was to do the
trial for her. She says that the solicitor told her the	30
barrister had looked at her case and thought she should plead
guilty because it was two police officers against her and that
their word would be believed over hers. If she pleaded not
guilty and was found guilty then she would get eight months'
40
imprisonment. She said that she would probably get two and a half years' sentence which would probably be suspended after
she had spent eight months in prison.
She was going to arrange a meeting with the barrister. She	50
then met the barrister. She claims he was dismissive of any
explanations or instructions she gave or attempted to give.

She says he…

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 Hardy

Details

AGLC: R v Hardy [2009] QDC 142
Case: [2009] QDC 142
Decision Date: 19/05/2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pamela Claire Hardy has applied to the District Court to set aside a guilty plea she entered to a charge of assaulting a police officer. The applicant claims that she was not guilty of the offence and that she was bullied into pleading guilty. The District Court was required to determine whether a miscarriage of justice would occur if the plea was not set aside. The Court considered the evidence and found that while the applicant's lawyers acted in her best interests, the applicant did not genuinely believe she was guilty of the offence when she pleaded guilty. The Court found that the plea was not a free and voluntary confession, and that a miscarriage of justice would occur if the plea was not set aside. The Court set aside the plea of guilty and listed the matter for mention.

Orders