R v Noel John LAWSON - [2009] NSWDC 81

CITATION: R v Noel John LAWSON [2009] NSWDC 81

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 May 2009

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett SC DCJ

DECISION: 1. The application to withdraw the pleas of guilty entered to the three counts on the indictment upon which the applicant was arraigned on 24 April 2008 is refused.
2. The additional offences included in the Form 1 signed by the applicant and on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, shall be taken into account upon the determination of sentence for the principal offence, count 1 in the indictment.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - pleas - general pleas - plea of guilty - withdrawal and restoration of plea - generally

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995
Listening Devices Act 1984

CASES CITED: Johnston v R [2009] NSWCCA 82
Meissner v R [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132
R v Abbruzzese [2006] NSWCCA 207
R v Stephen John Rae (No 2) [2005] NSWCCA 380
R v Van [2002] NSWCCA 148; (2002) 129 A Crim R 229
Wong v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] NSWSC 129; (2005) 155 A Crim R 37

PARTIES: The Crown (Respondent)
Noel John Lawson (Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): 2007 / 00011479

COUNSEL: D Degnan (Respondent)
P Paish (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Applicant)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bennett SC DCJ

8 May 2009

R v Noel John LAWSON
2007 / 00011479

JUDGMENT

APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW PLEAS OF GUILTY

Introduction

1 Noel John Lawson seeks leave to withdraw pleas of guilty entered before me upon arraignment in the District Court of New South Wales on 24 April 2008, and to withdraw his acknowledgement of guilt in respect of two additional offences that he asked to be taken into account on sentence.

The History of the Proceedings

2 The applicant first appeared before me for trial on Tuesday 22 April 2008 upon an indictment charging him with eight offences in the following terms,

First Count

On 4 September 2005 at Cartwright in State of New South Wales, being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, did rob Chris Minett of heroin, the property of Chris Minett.

s 97(1) Crimes Act , 1900

On 8 September 2005 at Cartwright in the State of New South Wales, did enter upon land occupied in connection with a building, namely at 24 Woolnough Place, with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation, upon that land.

s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act , 1900

On 8 September 2005 at Cartwright in the State of New South Wales, while in the company of another person did detain Ben Randall without his consent and with intent to obtain an advantage, namely gain entry to unit 8/24 Woolnough Place.

s 86(2) Crimes Act , 1900

On 8 September 2005 at Cartwright in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Rhonda Rumble with intent to cause her to fear physical or mental harm.

s…

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 Noel John LAWSON

Details

AGLC: R v Noel John Lawson [2009] NSWDC 81
Case: [2009] NSWDC 81
Decision Date: 8 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Noel John Lawson appealed against the refusal of his application to withdraw his guilty pleas to three counts of an indictment. The case was heard and determined by the court. The central issue was whether the court should allow the applicant to withdraw his pleas of guilty and whether the additional offences mentioned in the Form 1 should be taken into account during the sentencing process.

The court examined the principles guiding the withdrawal of guilty pleas, emphasising the importance of ensuring justice while considering the interests of all parties involved. It noted that while the court has a discretion to allow such withdrawals, it is not an absolute right. The court considered the timing of the application, the reasons provided by the applicant for the withdrawal, and the impact on the administration of justice. The court concluded that the application should be refused, as the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds warranting the exercise of the court's discretion.

The court also addressed the issue of the additional offences listed in the Form 1. It determined that these offences should be taken into account during the sentencing phase for the principal offence. The court reasoned that the Form 1, which sets out the agreed facts and circumstances, should be respected to maintain the integrity of the plea process. The court found that the additional offences, though not the subject of the formal charges, were relevant to the overall context of the sentencing.

In summary, the court denied the applicant's request to withdraw his guilty pleas, and ruled that the additional offences outlined in the Form 1 would be considered during sentencing. This decision ensures that the plea process remains fair and just, while also taking into account all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to withdraw the pleas of guilty entered to the three counts on the indictment upon which the applicant was arraigned on 24 April 2008 is refused. 2. The additional offences included in the Form 1 signed by the applicant and on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, shall be taken into account upon the determination of sentence for the principal offence, count 1 in the indictment.

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 Noel John LAWSON [2009] NSWDC 81
JUDGMENT DATE:	8 May 2009
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Bennett SC DCJ
DECISION:	1. The application to withdraw the pleas of guilty entered to the three counts on the indictment upon which the applicant was arraigned on 24 April 2008 is refused. 2. The additional offences included in the Form 1 signed by the applicant and on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, shall be taken into account upon the determination of sentence for the principal offence, count 1 in the indictment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - pleas - general pleas - plea of guilty - withdrawal and restoration of plea - generally
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Evidence Act 1995 Listening Devices Act 1984
CASES CITED:	Johnston v R [2009] NSWCCA 82 Meissner v R [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132 R v Abbruzzese [2006] NSWCCA 207 R v Stephen John Rae (No 2) [2005] NSWCCA 380 R v Van [2002] NSWCCA 148; (2002) 129 A Crim R 229 Wong v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] NSWSC 129; (2005) 155 A Crim R 37
PARTIES:	The Crown (Respondent) Noel John Lawson (Applicant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	2007 / 00011479
COUNSEL:	D Degnan (Respondent) P Paish (Applicant)
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Applicant)