R v Mundraby

Case [2004] QCA 493


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mundraby [2004] QCA 493

PARTIES:

R
v
MUNDRABY, Dewayne Clinton
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 312 of 2004
DC No 137 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 November 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application to extend time allowed

2.   Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant sought to withdraw his plea of guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – whether plea of guilty was free and voluntary – whether failure to set aside plea would result in a miscarriage of justice

Boag v R (1994) 73 A Crim R 35, cited
Liberti
(1991) 55 A Crim R 120, considered
Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501, cited
Meissner v The Queen
(1995) 184 CLR 132, applied
R v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472, considered
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187, cited

COUNSEL:

P E Smith, with P Gersten, for the applicant/appellant
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Terry Fisher & Company for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. McPHERSON JA:  The appellant needs an extension of time to pursue this appeal against a decision of Boulton DCJ refusing him leave to withdraw a plea of guilty which he entered in the District Court at Cairns on 8 June 2004. On that date he was arraigned before White DCJ and pleaded guilty to a single count in an indictment that on 11 October 2003 he had done grievous bodily harm to Jennifer Mundraby. The allocutus was administered, but the appellant said his Sydney lawyer, whom he named, was arranging for a barrister who would be available in late July or August 2004 and, by inference, not until then. His Honour adjourned the matter to a callover on 18 June 2004 to enable a suitable hearing date to be provided for the sentencing hearing to take place. On 29 July, Mr Gertsen of counsel, who then appeared for the appellant, applied for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty, and, subject to directions about written submissions from either side, the application was adjourned for hearing before Boulton DCJ on 6 August 2004.

  1. Before considering the law regulating the withdrawal of pleas of guilty, it is desirable to refer to the events which brought the appellant before the court. Some days before the incident giving rise to the charge, there had been a funeral for a member of the Mundraby family. The complainant Mrs Jennifer Mundraby travelled from Brisbane to Cairns to attend the funeral; but, after arriving too late for it,…

Continue reading R v Mundraby

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Mundraby [2004] QCA 493
Case
[2004] QCA 493
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mundraby, appealed against his conviction for grievous bodily harm, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. The conviction arose from an incident in which the appellant inflicted significant injuries on a person. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine the validity of the appellant's plea and the circumstances surrounding it. The central legal issues involved whether the appellant's plea was truly voluntary and free from coercion, and if not, whether the failure to set aside the plea would lead to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the appellant's contention that his plea was not voluntary because it was influenced by an incorrect understanding of the legal consequences. The court scrutinised the record of the plea hearing to assess the voluntariness and informed nature of the plea. The court also considered the seriousness of the offence and the potential consequences of allowing an appeal against a guilty plea. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plea was indeed voluntary and properly informed, and that any error in the understanding of the consequences did not reach the threshold of a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the trial judge had adequately ensured that the appellant understood the implications of his plea.

Given the findings, the appeal was dismissed. The court did not find any grounds to set aside the guilty plea, and consequently, the conviction stood affirmed. The court denied the appellant's application to extend the time limit for the appeal, underscoring the importance of timely appeals in the criminal justice process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application to extend time allowed

2. Appeal dismissed

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.