R v Richards - [2024] QCA 97

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Richards [2024] QCA 97

PARTIES:

R
v
RICHARDS, Christopher Denis
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 5 of 2022
DC No 45 of 2020
DC No 505 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction and Sentence: 12 February 2020 (Lynch KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 May 2024

JUDGES:

Bond and Boddice JJA and Crowley J

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence be refused.

2. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and to seek leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child exploitation material and three summary charges, being one charge of possessing utensils or pipes that had been used and two charges of failing to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of a syringe or needle – where the applicant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal his conviction in respect of the count of possessing child exploitation material – where the applicant submits the plea of guilty was “falsely” entered – where there was no suggestion the plea was not entered in plain, unambiguous and unmistaken terms and in the exercise of free choice – where the applicant made admissions to police as to his knowledge of the material and his having accessed and viewed it – whether the appeal has no prospects of success

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Wilson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

BOND JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Boddice JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.
BODDICE JA: On 12 February 2020, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child exploitation material and three summary charges, being one charge of possessing utensils or pipes that had been used and two charges of failing to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of a syringe or needle.
The applicant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of three years on the count of possessing child exploitation material. The applicant was convicted and not further punished on each of the summary charges. A conviction was recorded for the count and each charge.
The applicant makes applications for an extension of time within which to appeal his conviction and to seek leave to appeal his sentence, for the count of possessing child exploitation material. The applicant also makes an application for leave to adduce further evidence.
The ground of appeal sought to be pursued, in respect of the conviction, is that the…

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 Richards

Details

AGLC: R v Richards [2024] QCA 97
Case: [2024] QCA 97
Decision Date: 28 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Richards, the applicant, who had previously pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child exploitation material and three summary charges, sought an extension of time within which to appeal his conviction in respect of the child exploitation charge. The application was heard in the relevant appellate court. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant's plea of guilty to the child exploitation charge was "falsely" entered, thereby potentially warranting an extension of time to appeal.

The applicant argued that the plea was entered under duress and without full comprehension of its consequences, suggesting that it was not made freely. However, the court noted that there was no suggestion that the plea was not entered in plain, unambiguous, and unmistaken terms, nor that it was not made in the exercise of free choice. Additionally, the applicant had made admissions to police regarding his knowledge of the material and his having accessed and viewed it, which further undermined the claim that the plea was falsely entered.

The court found that the applicant's appeal had no prospects of success as there was no merit in the contention that the plea was entered under duress or without full comprehension. The court emphasised the importance of the integrity of the plea process and the need to uphold the principle that pleas should be made freely and with understanding. Consequently, the application for an extension of time within which to appeal was refused. Additionally, the application for leave to adduce further evidence was also denied.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence be refused.

2. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and to seek leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

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 Richards [2024] QCA 97
PARTIES:	R v RICHARDS, Christopher Denis (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 5 of 2022 DC No 45 of 2020 DC No 505 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction and Sentence: 12 February 2020 (Lynch KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 May 2024
JUDGES:	Bond and Boddice JJA and Crowley J
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence be refused. 2. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and to seek leave to appeal against sentence be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child exploitation material and three summary charges, being one charge of possessing utensils or pipes that had been used and two charges of failing to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of a syringe or needle – where the applicant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal his conviction in respect of the count of possessing child exploitation material – where the applicant submits the plea of guilty was “falsely” entered – where there was no suggestion the plea was not entered in plain, unambiguous and unmistaken terms and in the exercise of free choice – where the applicant made admissions to police as to his knowledge of the material and his having accessed and viewed it – whether the appeal has no prospects of success Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Wilson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent