R v Nguyen - [2012] NSWSC 1583

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nguyen [2012] NSWSC 1583
Hearing dates: 13 December 2012 14 December 2012
Decision date: 14 December 2012
Before: Price J
Decision:
Application to withdraw pleas of guilty entered on 19 July 2012 denied

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - withdrawal of pleas of guilty - rejected
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 s 18(1)(b), s 29, s 33(1)(a)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 25(1)/s 29
Firearms Act 1996 s 7(1)
Cases Cited: Frodsham v O'Gorman [1979] 1 NSWLR 683
Liberti v R (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Maxwell v The Queen [1996] HCA 46; (1996) 184 CLR 501
Norvenska v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2007] NSWCCA 158
R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218
R v Cincotta (Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, No 60472 of 1995, 1 November 1995)
R v Davies (1993) 19 MVR 579
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231
R v Hura [2001] NSWCCA 61; (2001) 121 A Crim R 472
R v KCH [2001] NSWCCA 273; (2001) 124 A Crim R 233
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187
R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
R v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
Royall v The Queen [1991] HCA 27; (1991) 172 CLR 378
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Philip Nguyen (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Representation: Counsel: Mr Tedeschi QC (Crown)
Solicitors: Mr Ledinh (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2010/300562

Ex Tempore Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 19 July 2012, Philip Nguyen, the applicant entered a plea of guilty to the charge that he on 8 September 2010 at Bankstown in the State of New South Wales, did feloniously slay William Crews. This is a charge of manslaughter contrary to s 18(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900; which was the first count on the indictment upon which he was arraigned before Latham J on that day.

The indictment contained two further counts being a charge of shooting at William Crews with intent to murder contrary to s 29 Crimes Act (count 2) and an alternative count of wounding William Crews with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 33(1)(a) Crimes Act (count 3). He pleaded guilty to the third count.

Offences of unauthorised possession of a pistol contrary to s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996 and supply of methylamphetamine contrary to s 25(1)/s 29 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 were included on a Form 1.

At the time the pleas were entered, the applicant was represented by Stephen Hanley SC who was instructed by Christopher Watson, a solicitor.

Mr Hanley was admitted to the bar in December 1986 and has practised solely in criminal law. He has conducted numerous trials on behalf of accused. Mr Watson has practiced as a solicitor for 42 years predominately in the area of criminal law.

The Crown accepted the pleas in full satisfaction of the indictment. The applicant's trial that had been listed to commence on 8 October 2012 was…

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 Nguyen

Details

AGLC: R v Nguyen [2012] NSWSC 1583
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1583
Decision Date: 14 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nguyen involved the defendant, Nguyen, who had entered pleas of guilty to charges of possessing a prohibited weapon and causing grievous bodily harm. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the circumstances under which a defendant could withdraw their guilty plea after sentencing had commenced. The appeal was brought by Nguyen against the decision of the lower court, which had rejected his attempt to withdraw the guilty pleas.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there are specific circumstances under which a defendant is entitled to withdraw a plea of guilty after the commencement of sentencing proceedings. The court needed to consider the existing legal framework and precedents regarding the withdrawal of pleas and whether the lower court's decision to deny Nguyen's request was correct. The case required an examination of the principles governing the timing and conditions for withdrawing guilty pleas in criminal cases.

The High Court found that the lower court had not erred in refusing Nguyen's application to withdraw his pleas. The court emphasised that the right to withdraw a guilty plea is not absolute and must be balanced against the interests of finality and the efficient administration of justice. The court held that there is no general right to withdraw a guilty plea once sentencing has commenced, unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant such a withdrawal. In this case, the court determined that Nguyen had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that justified allowing the withdrawal of his pleas. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentencing order was upheld.

Orders