R v Kent - [2000] QCA 247

[2000] QCA 247

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA

CA No 418 of 1999

THE QUEEN

TERRENCE COLIN PETER KENT Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/06/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Beenleigh on 14 December last year for the offence that on 6 May last year he had in his possession a Suzuki motor vehicle without the consent of the person in lawful possession of it with intent to permanently deprive that person of its use and possession.

He now seeks to set aside that plea for which he needs an extension of time. In the alternative, he seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him which was one of 18 months imprisonment to be suspended after four months with an operational period of four years together with a compensation order.

Mr Kimmins, for the applicant, accepts that in order to set aside his plea, the applicant must prove a miscarriage of justice and that ordinarily it is no miscarriage if the Court acts on a plea of guilty entered in open Court by a person of full age and apparently of sound mind and understanding providing the plea is entered in the exercise of a free choice in the interests of the person entering the plea even if the person entering the plea is not, in truth, guilty of the offence: Meissner v. The Queen (1995) 184 Commonwealth Law Reports 132 at 141. However, he contends that in this case there was a miscarriage.

On the day in question the applicant was found in possession of a white Suzuki motor vehicle which, on the previous day, had been rented from a car rental firm by someone using a stolen driver's licence as a means of identification. When it was found in the applicant's possession it was also found that the registration plates on it were those belonging to an older Suzuki motor vehicle of the same kind owned by the applicant.

It was also later found that the chassis number of the vehicle had been ground off although it was still able to be scientifically identified as a chassis number of the stolen vehicle. The compliance plate attached to the vehicle was not its original plate but the one belonging to the applicant's older Suzuki. The engine number on the vehicle was out of the stolen Suzuki.

When first approached at his home by police the applicant was asked about the registration plates on the Suzuki in question. He said they belonged on it and that it was his vehicle. He was asked if he had registration papers to which he replied, yes, and he said he would go inside the house to obtain them. He did not return. The police activated a micro cassette recorder and knocked on the door. The applicant then came out.

We do not have before us the recording of that conversation or the recording of a later conversation which the applicant had…

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 Kent

Details

AGLC: R v Kent [2000] QCA 247
Case: [2000] QCA 247
Decision Date: 19/06/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Terrence Colin Peter Kent, appealed against his conviction and sentence in the District Court at Beenleigh. Kent pleaded guilty to possessing a Suzuki motor vehicle without the consent of the lawful owner, with intent to permanently deprive the owner of its use and possession. Kent sought to set aside his guilty plea or, in the alternative, leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, which was 18 months imprisonment, suspended after four months, with an operational period of four years, and a compensation order. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant's plea was entered freely and with a sound mind, or if there was a miscarriage of justice. The applicant argued that he believed the vehicle was stolen, and thus his plea was based on a misunderstanding. The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's inconsistent accounts to police were not credible, and that the applicant was aware of the strength of the prosecution's case. Therefore, the Court found no miscarriage of justice and refused the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction. The Court also found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Pincus J, Davies J, and Thomas J, unanimously agreed with Pincus J's reasoning and outcome. The Court refused the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence. A warrant was to issue and lie in the Registry for seven days to allow the applicant to "clean up" certain matters.

Orders