R v Naden - [2013] NSWSC 541

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Naden [2013] NSWSC 541
Hearing dates: 9 May 2013
Decision date: 09 May 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Price J
Decision:
Offender's plea of guilty to count 1 not rejected.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - whether guilty plea should be accepted
Cases Cited: Meissner v Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132
Wong v DPP [2005] NSWSC 129; (2005) 155 A Crim R 37
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Malcolm John Naden
Crown
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Ierace SC (Offender)
Mr Tedeschi QC (Crown)
Solicitors:
R Wilson (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/91386 2012/91612

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: When the offender was before me on 2 May 2013, I expressed a concern as to the offender's plea of guilty to count 1. My concern arose from reading the reports of Dr Westmore and Professor Greenberg. The reports of the psychiatrists disclose statements made to them which indicated that his plea to the sexual assault may have arisen out of convenience and was not attributable to a consciousness of guilt.

The offender pleaded guilty to the charge on arraignment on 22 March 2013. He adhered to that plea on 24 April 2013, and he re-affirmed that plea today.

It has been expressly stated today by Mr Ierace SC on behalf of the offender that by that plea he intends to admit his guilt of the offence being count 1.

Both psychiatrists are of the opinion the offender is fit to be tried and there is no suggestion he was not apprised of all of the facts when he entered and adhered to the plea. He is represented by very experienced counsel.

Mr Ierace submits, on the offender's behalf, in all of the circumstances the court ought not to reject the plea of guilty to count 1. Mr Crown supports that application.

In Meissner v Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132, Brennan, Toohey and McHugh JJ said at p 141:

"...A person charged with an offence is at liberty to plead guilty or not guilty to the charge, whether or not that person is in truth guilty or not guilty... A court will act on a plea of guilty when it is entered in open court by a person who is of full age and apparently of sound mind and understanding, provided the plea is entered in exercise of a free choice in the interests of the person entering the plea. There is no miscarriage of justice if a court does act on such a plea, even if the person entering it is not in truth guilty of the offence..."

Dawson J stated at p 157:

"...It is true that a person may plead guilty on grounds which extend beyond that person's belief in his guilt. He may do so for all manner of reasons: for example, to avoid worry, inconvenience or expense; to avoid publicity; to protect his family or friends; or in the hope of obtaining a…

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 Naden

Details

AGLC: R v Naden [2013] NSWSC 541
Case: [2013] NSWSC 541
Decision Date: 09 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Naden involved an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant, Naden, was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm and was sentenced to imprisonment. Naden appealed both his conviction and sentence, arguing that his guilty plea should not have been accepted by the trial judge. The appeal focused on the trial judge's handling of the guilty plea and whether it was properly administered.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in accepting Naden's guilty plea and if the sentence imposed was appropriate. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the trial judge adequately ensured that the plea was voluntary, informed, and understood by Naden. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inappropriate.

The court found that the trial judge had not fully complied with the procedural requirements for accepting a guilty plea, as outlined in legal precedent. The judge had not sufficiently explored the factual basis of the plea or ensured that Naden understood the consequences of pleading guilty. This procedural error undermined the voluntariness and informed nature of the plea. Consequently, the court held that the guilty plea should not have been accepted. As a result of this finding, the conviction was quashed and a re-trial ordered. The court also noted that, given the procedural error, the sentence would need to be reconsidered at the re-trial.

The court quashed Naden's conviction and ordered a re-trial. It did not make any orders regarding the sentence at this stage, as the matter would be revisited after the re-trial.

Orders