R v Mamea - [2010] QCA 127

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mamea [2010] QCA 127

PARTIES:

R
v
MAMEA, Savelio
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 52 of 2010
DC No 3244 of 2009
DC No 2065 of 2009
DC No 3421 of 2008
DC No 1866 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2010

JUDGES:

Fraser and White JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for an extension of time refused.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to one count of rape and one count of sexual assault – where the applicant applied to vacate his pleas of guilty and the judge concluded that there was no ground established to justify setting the pleas aside – where the applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction and argued that the respective District Court judges erred in allowing the convictions to be entered and in not allowing his pleas to be vacated – whether there was a miscarriage of justice such as to justify setting aside the conviction on the applicant’s pleas of guilty – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132, [1995] HCA 41, cited
R v Carkeet [2009] 1 Qd R 190; [2008] QCA 143, cited
R v GV[2006] QCA 394, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf with T Seupule assisting
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: On 28 August 2009 the applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to a number of offences, including one count of rape and one count of sexual assault involving the same complainant. On 26 February 2010 he was sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment for the rape offence and to a concurrent term of three years imprisonment for the sexual assault. On a second indictment he was sentenced to concurrent terms of three months imprisonment for receiving stolen property with a circumstance of aggravation and stealing. On a third indictment he was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years imprisonment for burglary with circumstances of aggravation and assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, and to concurrent terms of three months imprisonment for attempted stealing and stealing. The concurrent sentences imposed on the third indictment were ordered to be served cumulatively upon the concurrent sentences imposed on the first and second indictments. The effective term of imprisonment is therefore nine and a half years.

On…

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 Mamea

Details

AGLC: R v Mamea [2010] QCA 127
Case: [2010] QCA 127
Decision Date: 28 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mamea involved the applicant, who had been convicted on his pleas of guilty to one count of rape and one count of sexual assault. The applicant sought to vacate his pleas of guilty, an application that was ultimately dismissed by the judge, who found no grounds to justify setting aside the pleas. Subsequently, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the conviction, arguing that the respective District Court judges had erred in allowing the convictions to be entered and in not permitting the pleas to be vacated. The central legal issues revolved around whether the applicant's convictions constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting the setting aside of his pleas of guilty, and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time for the appeal.

The court addressed the applicant's contention that there was a miscarriage of justice, considering the circumstances under which the pleas were entered and the evidence presented. It was noted that the applicant had been provided with a detailed statement of facts, which included admissions and admissions of facts consistent with the charges. The court held that there was no miscarriage of justice as the applicant had been adequately informed of the nature of the charges and had entered his pleas knowingly and voluntarily. Additionally, the court examined whether granting an extension of time for the appeal would be in the interests of justice, taking into account the delays and the impact on the administration of justice. Ultimately, the court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be refused.

In summary, the court found no miscarriage of justice in the applicant's convictions, and accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court also refused the applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge the appeal. These decisions underscore the importance of ensuring that pleas of guilty are entered voluntarily and with full understanding, and the need to balance the interests of justice with the efficient administration of the criminal justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for an extension of time refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Mamea [2010] QCA 127
PARTIES:	R v MAMEA, Savelio (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 52 of 2010 DC No 3244 of 2009 DC No 2065 of 2009 DC No 3421 of 2008 DC No 1866 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 May 2010
JUDGES:	Fraser and White JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application for an extension of time refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to one count of rape and one count of sexual assault – where the applicant applied to vacate his pleas of guilty and the judge concluded that there was no ground established to justify setting the pleas aside – where the applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction and argued that the respective District Court judges erred in allowing the convictions to be entered and in not allowing his pleas to be vacated – whether there was a miscarriage of justice such as to justify setting aside the conviction on the applicant’s pleas of guilty – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132, [1995] HCA 41, cited R v Carkeet [2009] 1 Qd R 190; [2008] QCA 143, cited R v GV[2006] QCA 394, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf with T Seupule assisting Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent