R v Hickman

[2003] QCA 449

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
MACKENZIE J

WILSON J

CA No 430 of 2002
THE QUEEN
v.

ARTHUR CYRIL HICKMAN

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/10/2003

JUDGMENT
APPLICANT conducted his own case

MR C W HEATON, with him MR M D SYMONS (instructed by the respondent

McPHERSON JA: I would not grant the adjournment sought in this case. My colleagues are of a different view and I will ask Mr Justice Mackenzie to state the terms on which the Court is prepared to grant the adjournment.

MACKENZIE J: While I have grave doubts about the bona fides of the application it seems to me that in the circumstances we have little option but to adjourn the matter. I would accordingly order that the matter will be adjourned to a date to be fixed with the following directions:

Within 28 days the applicant file and serve on the Director of
Public Prosecutions:

(i) an affidavit by the applicant setting out with full particularity the reasons why the plea of guilty should be set aside;
(ii) without limiting the generality of (i) the affidavit shall include any evidence upon which the applicant wishes to rely whether relating to advice given to him by his counsel or relating to his physical or mental state at the time the plea of guilty was entered; and
2 JUDGMENT

(iii) the affidavit shall also exhibit any medical evidence upon which the applicant wishes to rely in the form of a full opinion by a medical practitioner or medical practitioners as to the applicant's capacity to understand the nature and effect of his plea of guilty at the time he entered the plea of guilty.

McPHERSON JA: Yes, that will be the order of the Court.

-----

3 JUDGMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The Queen versus Arthur Cyril Hickman, the case was heard in the Court of Appeal in Queensland, Australia. The appellant, Arthur Cyril Hickman, sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence on the grounds that his plea of guilty was not validly entered due to a lack of understanding of its implications. The case was presided over by McPherson JA, MacKenzie J, and Wilson J, who heard the application for an adjournment to allow Hickman to provide further evidence to support his claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Hickman's plea of guilty was properly entered, given his alleged lack of understanding of the consequences of the plea. The court had to assess the validity of Hickman's application to set aside his guilty plea and the sufficiency of the evidence he proposed to submit in support of his claim. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the proposed evidence, including any medical opinion regarding his mental state at the time of the plea, would be sufficient to warrant setting aside the plea.

The Court of Appeal found that while there were doubts about the sincerity of the application, the circumstances required the matter to be adjourned. MacKenzie J directed that within 28 days, Hickman must file and serve on the Director of Public Prosecutions an affidavit detailing the reasons for setting aside the plea, including any evidence relating to advice received from counsel or his mental state. The affidavit must also include any medical evidence regarding his capacity to understand the plea at the time it was entered. The Court granted the adjournment on these terms, and the matter was set to continue at a later date.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established