R v Paul Michael Offer - [2002] NSWCCA 341

CITATION: R v Paul Michael OFFER [2002] NSWCCA 341

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60620/00

HEARING DATE(S): 11 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Paul Michael OFFER

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Dowd J at 2; Buddin J at 59

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70096/98

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Greg James J

COUNSEL :
K G Horler QC - Appellant
R A Hulme - Crown

SOLICITORS:
Macquarie Lawyers - Appellant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: Appeal against conviction - After guilty plea - Principles applicable - No factual basis

CASES CITED:
R v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472
R v Meissner (1995) 184 CLR 132
R v Bayliss [2002] NSWCCA 11

DECISION: 1. That the appeal on conviction be dismissed; 2. That leave to appeal against sentence, be granted and; 3. That the sentence appeal be dismissed.

60620/00

MASON P
DOWD J
BUDDIN J
Thursday 15 AUGUST 2002

R v Paul Michael OFFER

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with Dowd J.

2 DOWD J: This is an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the appellant, who pleaded guilty to two offences, before Greg James J, asking that three further offences be taken into account.

3 On 25 August 2000, the Learned Sentencing Judge, sentenced the appellant to a ten year fixed term, commencing on 17 October 1997 on a charge of Cause Grievous Bodily Harm to Nagwa Gerges, at St Ives on 25 February 1997. He was further sentenced to thirty four years imprisonment, for the murder of Ronald Mills, at Allawah, with a non-parole period of twenty five years, the sentence to commence 27 October 1997, when he went into custody, the non-parole period commencing on that date and concluding on 16 October 2022.

4 In sentencing for murder His Honour took into account three offences, being:

1. An offence of Solicit to Murder, being the soliciting of Alan Seaton at Sydney in 1997, to murder Ronald Mills.

2. An Offence of Solicit to Murder, being the soliciting of Alan Seaton at Sydney in 1997, to murder Maher Nicola Gerges.

3. An Offence of Solicit to Murder, being the soliciting of Alan Seaton at Sydney in 1997, to murder Mark Chapman.

Facts in Count 1

5 The shooting of Nagwa Gerges in the head, with a bolt from a crossbow, occurred when she answered the door of her home in St Ives, the appellant having intended to kill her husband Maher Nicola Gerges. Mr Gerges found his wife lying near the front door with a bolt in her head. He, in panic, removed the bolt. The victim suffered severe head and brain injuries and now suffers from a permanent semi paralysis of her right side, with moderate to severe weakness to her right upper limb and milder weakness to her right lower limb. Mrs Gerges suffers from lack of peripheral vision on her right side and…

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 Paul Michael Offer

Details

AGLC: R v Paul Michael OFFER [2002] NSWCCA 341
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 341
Decision Date: 20 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Offer, the appellant, Paul Michael Offer, was convicted of various criminal offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, deprivation of liberty, and false imprisonment. The matter came before the High Court of Australia on appeal against the conviction, which followed a guilty plea. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's acceptance of the guilty plea was valid given the lack of a factual basis provided by the prosecution at the time of the plea.

The court considered whether the principles set out in earlier case law regarding the acceptance of guilty pleas in the absence of a factual basis were correctly applied in this instance. It was established that for a guilty plea to be validly accepted, the court must have sufficient information to ensure that the plea is informed and voluntary, and that the accused understands the nature and consequences of the plea. In this case, the prosecution did not provide a factual basis for the plea, which led to the appellant's argument that the trial judge's acceptance of the plea was flawed.

The High Court held that the trial judge had indeed erred by accepting the guilty plea without a factual basis being presented. The court emphasised that this was a significant procedural error that undermined the fundamental fairness of the proceedings. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the lower court for further proceedings. The court did not provide specific orders beyond the quashing of the conviction and the direction for the matter to be reheard.

Orders