R v REES - [2023] SADC 49

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

R v REES
[2023] SADC 49
Judgment of her Honour Judge McIntyre
24 April 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - PLEAS - GENERAL PLEAS - PLEA OF GUILTY - WITHDRAWAL AND RESTORATION OF PLEA - AFTER COMMITTAL FOR SENTENCE ON PLEA OF GUILTY
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM
The defendant was charged with four counts related to her driving a motor vehicle dangerously, crashing, injuring her passengers and fleeing the scene. The defendant pleaded guilty to all four charges in the Magistrates Court and the matter was committed to the District Court for sentence where the defendant was arraigned and the allocutus was administered. Count one was aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving. Prior to sentencing submissions being heard, the victim in relation to count one died as a result of her injuries. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) filed an ex officio Information charging the offence of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving. The defendant pleaded guilty to that offence and the allocutus was administered. The DPP has declined to withdraw count one.
The defendant has applied by way of interlocutory application for orders that she be permitted to withdraw her guilty plea for count one or, in the alternative, that this Court grant a stay of proceedings in relation to the defendant being sentenced for that charge.
Held:
1. The application to withdraw the plea on count one is dismissed.
2. The application to stay proceedings in relation to count one is granted.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 19A(1), 19AB(3), 19 AB(2); Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 119, referred to.
R v HJS [2020] SASC 142; Stropin v The Queen [2021] SASCA 50; R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; Hassan v The Queen [2022] SASCA 56; Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610, considered.

R v REES
[2023] SADC 49
Criminal: Decision

The defendant has applied by way of interlocutory application for an order that she be permitted to withdraw the guilty plea that was entered on count one on the Magistrates Court Information dated 24 June 2021 or, in the alternative, that this Court grant a stay of proceedings in relation to the defendant being sentenced for that charge. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the application to withdraw the plea, but I will grant a stay of proceedings in relation to that charge.
Background
The defendant was committed for sentence to the District Court of South Australia on one count of aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving and one count of aggravated causing harm by dangerous driving contrary to s 19A(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the Act) together with two counts of leaving the scene of an…

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 REES

Details

AGLC: R v REES [2023] SADC 49
Case: [2023] SADC 49
Decision Date: 24 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a defendant, Rees, who was charged with culpable or dangerous driving causing death. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Rees initially pleaded guilty to the charge and the matter was committed for sentence. However, Rees subsequently sought to withdraw his guilty plea, which was opposed by the prosecution. The court was required to determine whether Rees could withdraw his plea and whether the prosecution's opposition to the withdrawal was justified.

The court considered whether Rees' application to withdraw his plea was an abuse of process and whether the prosecution's opposition was justified. The court noted that a defendant has the right to withdraw a plea of guilty before sentence is passed, but this right is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions. The court also considered whether the prosecution's opposition was an abuse of process, and whether the delay caused by the withdrawal application would cause injustice to the victim's family.

The court held that Rees was entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty, but that the prosecution's opposition was not an abuse of process. The court found that the delay caused by the withdrawal application was not sufficient to amount to an abuse of process, and that the prosecution's opposition was justified in the circumstances. The court ordered that the plea of guilty be restored and that the matter proceed to sentence.

The court ordered that Rees' plea of guilty be restored and that the matter proceed to sentence. The court also ordered that Rees be sentenced on the charge of culpable or dangerous driving causing death.

Orders