R v Hennessy; Hennessy v Vojvodic

Case [2010] QCA 345

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hennessy; Hennessy v Vojvodic [2010] QCA 345

PARTIES:

R
v
HENNESSY, David John
(appellant)

HENNESSY, David John
(appellant)
v
VOJVODIC, Danilo Denny
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 90 of 2010
CA No 153 of 2010
DC No 1686 of 2008
DC No 2421 of 2008
DC No 2566 of 2008
DC No 2802 of 2008
DC No 1101 of 2010
DC No 1102 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2010

JUDGES:

Fraser and White JJA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

In respect of CA No 90 of 2010:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Set aside the pleas of guilty.

3.   Quash the convictions in respect of Count 1 on Indictment 1686 of 2008 and Bench Charge Sheet 2808 of 2008 in respect of breaches of the domestic violence order of 14 November 2006.

4.   Set aside the sentences imposed for those offences.

In respect of CA No 153 of 2010:

1.   Grant leave to appeal.

2.   Allow the appeal.

3.   Set aside the pleas of guilty entered in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh on 15 February and 24 April 2007.

4.   Quash the convictions.

5.   Set aside the sentences imposed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant convicted on his own pleas of guilty of unlawful stalking and other offences – where appellant has served the sentences imposed – whether a defence of unsoundness of mind was open to the appellant – whether the appellant’s pleas should be set aside and the convictions quashed in the interests of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 27
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222(2)

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, followed
Price v Davies (2001) 120 A Crim R 183; [2001] WASCA 81, followed
R v Davies (1993) 19 MVR 481, followed
R v Hennessy[2010] QCA 142, related
R v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472; [2001] NSWCCA 61, followed
R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120, followed
Soteriou v Police (SA) (2000) 32 MVR 256; [2000] SASC 256, cited
Wong v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2005) 155 A Crim R 37; [2005] NSWSC 129, followed

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of White JA.  I agree with those reasons and the orders proposed by her Honour.

  1. WHITE JA: On 2 June 2010 this Court extended time for the appellant to…

Continue reading R v Hennessy; Hennessy v Vojvodic

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hennessy; Hennessy v Vojvodic [2010] QCA 345
Case
[2010] QCA 345
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hennessy, was convicted of unlawful stalking and other offences in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh. Hennessy subsequently appealed against his conviction, arguing that he should have been able to raise a defence of unsoundness of mind, and that his pleas should be set aside and the convictions quashed in the interests of justice. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. The court had to decide whether the appellant's pleas should be set aside and the convictions quashed in light of the potential availability of the defence of unsoundness of mind.

The court considered whether the appellant had a viable defence of unsoundness of mind that could have been raised at the time of his guilty pleas. It noted that the appellant had served the sentences imposed, which indicated the seriousness of the convictions and the need for a careful consideration of the appellant's rights. The court held that the appellant had a real prospect of establishing unsoundness of mind at the time of the offences, which would have provided a defence to the charges. The court found that the appellant's guilty pleas were not fully informed due to this potential defence, and that it was in the interests of justice to set aside the pleas and quash the convictions.

As a result, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the pleas and convictions in respect of certain counts. The sentences imposed for those offences were also set aside. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal in respect of other counts, setting aside the pleas, quashing the convictions, and setting aside the sentences imposed for those offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

In respect of CA No 90 of 2010:

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Set aside the pleas of guilty.

3. Quash the convictions in respect of Count 1 on Indictment 1686 of 2008 and Bench Charge Sheet 2808 of 2008 in respect of breaches of the domestic violence order of 14 November 2006.

4. Set aside the sentences imposed for those offences.

In respect of CA No 153 of 2010:

1. Grant leave to appeal.

2. Allow the appeal.

3. Set aside the pleas of guilty entered in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh on 15 February and 24 April 2007.

4. Quash the convictions.

5. Set aside the sentences imposed.

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.