Legal Research
Cases
R v Holden

R v Holden

Case [2009] VSCA 254 29 October 2009

Criminal Liability

Voluntary Plea

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 551 of 2008

THE QUEEN
	v
GRAHAM JOHN HOLDEN

---

JUDGES	BUCHANAN and NEAVE JJA and HANSEN AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	13 July 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT	29 October 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2009] VSCA 254
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	[2007] VSC 417 (King J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter – Whether guilty plea should be set aside – Whether guilty plea made voluntarily and in the exercise of a free and informed choice – Alleged improper pressure to plead guilty constituted by pressure from legal representatives, comments made by judge, mental state and financial circumstances – Desire to withdraw guilty plea – Whether miscarriage of justice resulted because applicant was unaware of ability to withdraw guilty plea – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C J Ryan SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr D A Dann	Ann Valos Criminal Law

BUCHANAN JA:

I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal against conviction for the reasons stated by Neave JA.

NEAVE JA:

The applicant, Graham John Holden, was presented for trial in the Supreme Court on one count of murder. On 25 July 2007 (the seventh day of the trial) following discussions between counsel, Mr Holden pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The jury then returned a directed acquittal on the count of murder and Mr Holden was convicted of manslaughter. After hearing a plea in mitigation on 27 July 2007 and 29 August 2007, the learned judge sentenced him on 12 October 2007 to six years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years.

Mr Holden now seeks leave to appeal against his manslaughter conviction.[1] In essence he claims that his guilty plea should be set aside because it was not made in the exercise of a free and informed choice, but occurred as a result of pressure brought to bear on him by the trial judge and his legal representatives. He alleges that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter when he was not mentally fit to make an informed choice as to whether he should do so, that he was in fact acting in self defence when he killed the victim and that he had at all times intended to plead not guilty to murder.
[1]The applicant was granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction on 17 November 2008. He also sought leave to appeal against sentence, but that application was abandoned on 16 March 2009.

Mr Holden claims that he killed Torney in an act of self defence. His amended outline of submissions noted that:

The applicant had been attacked with a spade in an isolated location by a known murderer who both boasted of and was suspected by police of being a hit-man and multiple murder, and who had threatened and terrorized [sic] the applicant…

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 Holden

Details

AGLC: R v Holden [2009] VSCA 254
Case: [2009] VSCA 254
Decision Date: 29 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Holden, applied for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for manslaughter. The case involved a plea of guilty to manslaughter following a fatal altercation. The appeal concerned the voluntariness and informed nature of the guilty plea. It was argued that the plea was not made voluntarily due to alleged improper pressure from legal representatives, comments made by the trial judge, the applicant's mental state, and his financial circumstances. The applicant also claimed that he was unaware of his ability to withdraw the plea, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined whether the applicant's plea was made voluntarily and whether he exercised a free and informed choice. The factors considered included the pressure from legal representatives, the comments made by the trial judge, the applicant's mental health, and his financial situation. The applicant argued that these factors contributed to an environment where his decision to plead guilty was not truly voluntary. Furthermore, the applicant asserted that he was unaware of his right to withdraw the plea, which undermined the voluntariness of his decision.

After considering the arguments presented, the court found that the applicant's plea was made voluntarily and in the exercise of a free and informed choice. The court determined that the alleged pressures and circumstances did not undermine the voluntariness of the plea. Additionally, the court held that the applicant was not unaware of his right to withdraw the plea, as he had been informed of this right during the plea process. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court's decision confirmed the applicant's conviction and sentence for manslaughter. The court held that the plea was valid and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The applicant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and his conviction and sentence remained in place.

Orders