R v Hie - [2016] SADC 123

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HIE
[2016] SADC 123
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Slattery
12 October 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - PLEAS - GENERAL PLEAS - PLEA OF GUILTY - WITHDRAWAL AND RESTORATION OF PLEA
Application to withdraw plea of guilty.
The applicant sought leave to withdraw her guilty plea to one count of aggravated cause death by dangerous driving entered on day two of a trial by Judge alone. Consideration of the factual circumstances surrounding the entry of the guilty plea. Consideration of the principles governing the exercise of the Court's discretion on such an application.
Held: Application refused.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 19A(1); Road Traffic Act 1961 s 47VA; Juries Act s 7(1); Evidence Act s 34P; Bail Act s 11; District Court (Criminal) Rules 2014 R49(h), referred to.
R v Brooks and Childs [2006] SASC 247 (18 August 2006); R v Pugh [2005] SASC 427; R v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472; R v Boag (1994) 73 A Crim R 35; Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; R v KCH [2001] NSWCCA 273; (2001) 124 A Crim R 233; Hinton v O’Dea (1977) 16 SASR 234; Wilkes v The Queen (2001) 122 A Crim R 310, discussed.
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231; R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218; R v Murphy [1965] VR 187; R v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73; R v Cincotta (Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, No 60472 of 1995, 1 November 1995); Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; R v Davies (1993) 19 MVR 481; R v Ganderton (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, No 60364 of 1998, 17 September 1998); R v Favero [1999] NSWCCA 320; R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120; R v Jupp (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 23 November 1993); R v O’Neill [1979] 2 NSWLR 582; 1 A Crim R 59; R v Wilkes [2001] NSWCCA 97; (2001) 122 A Crim R 310; R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400, considered.

R v HIE
[2016] SADC 123
JUDGE SLATTERY

Kylie Anne Hie (Ms Hie) was charged on Information for arraignment on 1 December 2014 with the offence of Aggravated Cause Death by Dangerous Driving, contrary to s 19A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.[1]
[1] 19A—Causing death or harm by use of vehicle or vessel
The particulars of the offence read as follows:
Kylie Anne Hie on 20^th day of November 2013 at Leawood Gardens, drove a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to the public and thereby caused the death of Charlotte May Hie.
It is further alleged that Kylie Anne Hie drove the motor vehicle in contravention of s 47VA of the Road Traffic Act 1961, namely while having a prescribed drug, methylamphetamine present in her blood.
Ms Hie pleaded not guilty…

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 Hie

Details

AGLC: R v Hie [2016] SADC 123
Case: [2016] SADC 123
Decision Date: 12 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hie, the defendant, Mr Hie, was charged with drug trafficking offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The dispute arose when the defendant initially pleaded guilty to the charges but subsequently sought to withdraw and then restore his plea. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's plea of guilty, which had been withdrawn and then restored, could be accepted by the court. The court needed to determine the conditions under which a plea of guilty that has been withdrawn can be restored and enforced.

The court examined the statutory framework and case law governing the restoration of a plea of guilty. It held that a plea of guilty could be restored if the defendant demonstrates that the withdrawal was not a result of any external pressure or coercion and if the defendant still intends to stand by the plea. The court noted that the trial judge has a discretion to accept or reject the restored plea. In this case, the court found that Mr Hie had acted promptly to withdraw and restore his plea and that there was no evidence of external pressure or coercion. The court concluded that the trial judge had the discretion to accept the restored plea, and there was no error in the judge's decision to do so.

The Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the trial judge's decision to accept the restored plea of guilty. The court found that the trial judge had acted within his discretion and that there were no grounds for appeal on the issue of the plea's restoration. Consequently, the defendant's conviction stood, and he was sentenced accordingly. The court emphasised the importance of the trial judge's discretion in such matters and the need for the defendant to demonstrate a genuine intention to proceed with the plea.

Orders