COUNSEL: In person (Appellant) L M B Lampratti (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: In person (Appellant) S E O'Connor (Respondent)
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - withdrawal of guilty plea - s91 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - finding of guilty made - no jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of plea MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - whether acceptance of guilty plea constituted miscarriage of justice - no miscarriage of justice
Daren Tahu Hura (the Appellant) was indicted on five counts before the District Court. The Appellant plead guilty to the first count which was assault occasioning bodily harm to his de facto wife. The remaining four counts were assault occasioning actually bodily harm to his son, an act of indecency, and two charges of sexual intercourse without consent. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to each of these four counts.
During the course of the Crown evidence, the Appellant changed his plea such that he plead guilty to all five counts on the indictment. Pursuant to s399A of the Crimes Act 1900 (now s91 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986) the Appellant was rearraigned and he pleaded guilty to all counts. The judge accepted all of the pleas of guilty and discharged the jury accordingly. The judge proceeded with a hearing on sentence. That hearing was adjourned until a later date.
At the further proceedings on sentence, the Appellant indicated that he wished to withdraw his plea of guilty in relation to the last four counts on the original indictment. Graham DCJ determined that by virtue of s91(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, he had no jurisdiction to allow a withdrawal of the guilty pleas. The Appellant appeals this decision and also alleges a miscarriage of justice by virtue of his entering the guilty pleas.
Held
per Spigelman CJ, Simpson J and Carruthers AJ agreeing.
Jurisdiction of District Court
The word “finding” in s91(2) should not be given an overly technical meaning. His Honour’s acts in accepting the pleas of guilty, discharging the jury and commenting that there was no longer a need for a trial and that the pleas were “all that the law requires in order to establish his guilt” were sufficient to constitute a “finding” in the relevant sense. His Honour was correct to determine that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for withdrawal of the guilty pleas.
[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 Hura
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Hura [2001] NSWCCA 61
Case
[2001] NSWCCA 61
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Hura, the respondent was convicted in the County Court of Victoria following a guilty plea to an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. The respondent sought to withdraw the guilty plea and the trial judge found that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice, allowing the plea to be withdrawn. The Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge should not have allowed the withdrawal of the guilty plea. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The respondent appealed to the High Court.
The legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had the jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of a guilty plea following a finding of guilt. The Court considered the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and determined that once a finding of guilt had been made, there was no jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of a guilty plea. The Court held that the acceptance of a guilty plea by the court constituted a finding of guilt, and as such, the trial judge did not have the jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of the plea. The Court also held that the acceptance of a guilty plea did not constitute a miscarriage of justice, as the respondent had voluntarily entered the plea and was aware of the consequences of doing so.
The High Court found that the trial judge's decision to allow the withdrawal of the guilty plea was in error and quashed the conviction. The Court emphasised the importance of finality in criminal proceedings and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court noted that the statutory provisions regarding the withdrawal of guilty pleas were clear and unambiguous, and that the trial judge should have followed them. The Court held that the acceptance of a guilty plea did not constitute a miscarriage of justice, as the respondent had voluntarily entered the plea and was aware of the consequences of doing so. The Court also noted that the respondent had not demonstrated any grounds for setting aside the guilty plea, such as duress or coercion.
The High Court's decision in this case highlights the importance of following statutory provisions regarding the withdrawal of guilty pleas in criminal proceedings. The Court emphasised the need for finality in criminal proceedings and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court's decision also reinforces the principle that the acceptance of a guilty plea by the court constitutes a finding of guilt, and that there is no jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of a guilty plea once a finding of guilt has been made.