R v O'Sullivan - [2002] NSWCCA 98

Reported Decision:
(2002) 128 A Crim R 371

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: O'SULLIVAN v THE QUEEN [2002] NSWCCA 98

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60781/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27 February 2002
28 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 March 2002

PARTIES :

Michael John O'Sullivan - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Grove J at 48; Simpson J at 52

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : Gosford 1992

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : McGuire DCJ

COUNSEL : E Conditsis - Applicant
D Woodburne - Crown

SOLICITORS: Conditsis & Associates - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - whether confession was voluntary - plea of guilty - fresh evidence - Police Royal Commission - miscarriage of justice - convictions quashed - acquittal

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Royal Commissions Act 1923

CASES CITED:
Johns (1999) 110 A Crim R 149
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
R v Boyd [2000] NSWCCA 110
R v Liberti (1951) 55 A Crim R 120
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187
R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400
Davies (NSWCCA, 16 December 1993, unreported)
Cincotta (NSWCCA, 1 November 1995, unreported)
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
Vastag (NSWCCA, 12 May 1997, unreported)
R v Pavic (1998) 151 ALR 98
R v Fernando (NSWCCA, 14 April 1999, unreported)
R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321
McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468)

DECISION: 1 Appeal upheld; 2 Conviction on each charge quashed; 3 Direct that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered on each charge.

60781/01

SHELLER JA
GROVE J
SIMPSON J

O’SULLIVAN v THE QUEEN

The appellant was convicted in 1992 in the Local Court on charges of supplying a prohibited drug and self administering a prohibited drug. The only evidence on which the convictions were based was the appellant's confession.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the charges in the Local Court and then lodged an all grounds appeal. In the District Court he ultimately abandoned his appeal against conviction and proceeded only against the severity of his sentence. Judge McGuire confirmed the convictions but set aside the sentences and re-sentenced the appellant.

In July 2001 the appellant filed an application under ss474D and 474E of the Crimes Act 1900. Section 474D(1) enables a convicted person to apply to the Supreme Court for an inquiry into his conviction or sentence. The matter was referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal in order to address fresh evidence which arose from the Police Royal Commission.

The integrity of the two police officers who arrested and charged the appellant was challenged in the Police Royal Commission. One of the officers was later convicted of inciting, soliciting and procuring the supply of prohibited drugs and knowingly giving false evidence. The appellant claimed that he had been coerced by the officers into making a confession, and his conviction depended…

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 O'Sullivan

Details

AGLC: R v O'Sullivan [2002] NSWCCA 98
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 98
Decision Date: 28 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v O'Sullivan, the appellant sought to overturn his criminal convictions based on the assertion that his confessions were not voluntary. The dispute involved the admissibility of these confessions and the subsequent miscarriage of justice, which was brought to light by the findings of the Police Royal Commission. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system.

The legal issues at hand required the court to determine the voluntariness of the appellant's confessions, the admissibility of such confessions in court, and whether the appellant's plea of guilty was made under duress or influenced by the perceived unavailability of fresh evidence. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the Police Royal Commission's findings on the appellant's convictions and whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The court found that the confessions were indeed involuntary, leading to the quashing of the appellant's convictions. The court took into account the appellant's age at the time of the confessions, the length of the interrogation, and the absence of legal representation, which cumulatively contributed to the conclusion that the confessions were not made voluntarily. The court also noted that the appellant's plea of guilty was likely influenced by the circumstances surrounding the interrogations. Consequently, the court ruled that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges against him. The High Court ordered that the convictions be quashed and that the appellant be released from custody.

Orders