R v Knudson

Case [2021] QCA 267

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Knudson [2021] QCA 267

PARTIES:

R
v
KNUDSON, Bradley William
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 93 of 2020
CA No 168 of 2021
DC No 633 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Brisbane – Date of Conviction and Sentence: 29 April 2020 (Kent QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 October 2021

JUDGES:

Fraser and Bond JJA and Kelly J

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal against conviction.

2.   Set aside the conviction in respect of count two of the indictment.

3.   Set aside the sentence imposed in respect of count two of the indictment being the term of imprisonment for seven years.

4.   Remit count two of the indictment to the District Court for further hearing.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of disabling with intent to commit an indictable offence – where the indictment did not particularise the indictable offence the appellant was charged with having intended to commit while disabling – where the appellant agreed to a statement of facts – where the appellant understood he would be sentenced on the basis of the agreed statement of facts – where the agreed statement of facts did not include any allegation of intention – where the appellant consistently maintained that he was under the influence of drugs and was hallucinating at the time of the subject offending – where there was no discussion between the appellant and his lawyers about the effect of intention on the sentence – whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the circumstances – whether the guilty plea should be set aside

Criminal Code (Qld), s 315, s 573

Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254, cited
Dean v R [2019] NSWCCA 27, considered
Ex parte Graham; Re Dowling [1969] 1 NSWR 231, cited
Hamilton v DPP [2020] NSWSC 1745, considered
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467; [1937] HCA 77, considered
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; [1996] HCA 46, cited
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered
R v Carkeet [2009] 1 Qd R 190; [2008] QCA 143, cited
R v Jerome and McMahon [1964] Qd R 595, considered
R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120, considered
R v Mundraby [2004] QCA 493, cited
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187; [1965] VicRp 26, cited
R v Osborne [1987] 1 Qd R 96, cited
R v Radic (2001) 122 A Crim R 70; [2001] NSWCCA 174, cited
R v Saffron (1988) 17 NSWLR 395, cited
R v Tonks [1963] VR 121; [1963] VicRp 19, cited
R v Wade [2012] 2 Qd R 31; [2011] QCA 289, cited
Zaburoni v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 482; [2016]…

Continue reading R v Knudson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Knudson [2021] QCA 267
Case
[2021] QCA 267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction in the case of R v Knudson concerns a defendant who pleaded guilty to disabling with intent to commit an indictable offence. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the appellant's guilty plea should be set aside, and whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the indictment's failure to particularise the indictable offence the appellant was alleged to have intended to commit. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia.

The legal issues at the core of this appeal revolve around the adequacy of the indictment and the appellant's understanding of the charges against him. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the omission of particulars regarding the intended indictable offence from the indictment, and the subsequent absence of any mention of intent in the agreed statement of facts, led to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the appellant's consistent claims of drug-induced hallucinations at the time of the offence should have influenced the plea process, and whether there was a duty on the part of the appellant's legal representatives to discuss the implications of intent on the sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the absence of the particularisation of the intended indictable offence in the indictment, and the lack of discussion about the effect of intent on the sentence between the appellant and his legal representatives, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court determined that the appellant did not have a clear understanding of the full implications of his guilty plea due to these omissions. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence for the charge of disabling with intent, and remitted the matter to the District Court for a further hearing.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to allow the appeal against conviction, set aside the conviction and sentence for count two of the indictment, and remit the matter to the District Court for a further hearing. This decision ensures that the appellant will have the opportunity to fully understand the charges against him and to properly plead to them.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal against conviction.

2. Set aside the conviction in respect of count two of the indictment.

3. Set aside the sentence imposed in respect of count two of the indictment being the term of imprisonment for seven years.

4. Remit count two of the indictment to the District Court for further hearing.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.