R v Reed - [2003] VSCA 95

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No.201 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
PHILIP EDWARD REED

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., PHILLIPS and CHERNOV JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 June 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 August 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 95

---

Criminal law – Trafficking in a commercial quantity of ecstasy – Plea of guilty and co-operation against co-defendants – Subsequent discovery that police lack evidence of substance handled – Application to have conviction set aside and plea of guilty changed – Application refused

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. M.G. Perry	N.A. Young & Co.

WINNEKE, P.:

I agree with Phillips, J.A., and for the reasons which he gives, that the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be dismissed. I wish to add only a few reasons of my own.

Where an applicant has pleaded guilty to an offence, and his plea has been accepted by the court and his conviction entered in the records, it will only be in exceptional circumstances that an appellate court will set aside that conviction. Those exceptional circumstances have widely been accepted as embracing, almost exclusively, the following:

(1)that the applicant did not appreciate the nature of the charge, or did not intend to admit that he was guilty of it; or
(2)that upon the admitted facts, he could not in law have been convicted of the offence charged.[1]

[1]R. v. Forde [1923] 2 K.B. 400; R. v. Cooling [1990] 1 Qd.R. 376; R. v. Liberti (1991) 55 A.Crim.R. 120; R. v. Murphy [1965] V.R. 187; R. v. Kardogeros [1991] 1 V.R. 269; R. v. Tait [1996] 1 V.R. 662.

The present application, for the reasons given by Phillips, J.A., does not fall within the circumstances described. The applicant knew full well that he was pleading guilty to a charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of amphetamine; and his own admissions to the police, statements by others and supporting circumstantial facts provided ample material to support his guilty plea. The circumstance that the Crown has now apparently taken the view that it has insufficient evidence to prefer and prove a similar charge against the applicant’s co-accused is not, of itself, a sufficient basis for the success of the present application. All that shows is that the evidence admissible against the co-accused falls well short of the evidential strength (including his admissions) of the case against the applicant.

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction, an application

which is made pursuant to an extension of time granted by this Court to the applicant on 4 December 2002. The applicant was presented in the County Court on one count of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, namely ecstasy, between March 1998 and 30 April 1998. He pleaded guilty and, after a plea in mitigation, he was sentenced to imprisonment for three…

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 Reed

Details

AGLC: R v Reed [2003] VSCA 95
Case: [2003] VSCA 95
Decision Date: 1 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a case involving a defendant, Reed, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in a commercial quantity of ecstasy. This plea was made on the basis of Reed's co-operation with law enforcement against his co-defendants. Following the plea, it came to light that the police did not have evidence to prove that the substance handled was indeed ecstasy. Reed subsequently applied to have his conviction set aside and to withdraw his plea of guilty. The court was required to determine whether these applications should be granted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the absence of evidence concerning the substance in question warranted setting aside Reed's conviction and allowing him to withdraw his plea. The court considered the nature of Reed's plea, which was made in the context of co-operating against co-defendants. The court also examined the principles of fairness and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. It was noted that Reed's plea was entered with full knowledge of the consequences and that the co-operation agreement did not absolve him of the risk that the evidence might be insufficient.

The court held that the lack of evidence concerning the substance did not provide a sufficient ground to set aside the conviction or permit Reed to withdraw his plea. The court emphasised that Reed's plea was entered voluntarily and with a clear understanding of the potential consequences. The court also found that allowing the application would undermine the integrity of the plea process and the agreements made between Reed and the prosecution. The court concluded that the interests of justice were best served by upholding the conviction and plea.

The final orders of the court were to refuse Reed's application to set aside his conviction and to withdraw his plea of guilty. The court confirmed the conviction and maintained the plea as entered.

Orders