R v Shipley - [2016] QCA 23

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Shipley [2016] QCA 23

PARTIES:

R
v
SHIPLEY, Kathleen May
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 32 of 2015
SC No 37 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – [2014] QSC 299

DELIVERED ON:

12 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 October 2015

JUDGES:

Gotterson JA and Peter Lyons and Dalton JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Set aside the convictions recorded on 9 March 2015.

3.   Set aside the order made on 10 December 2014 that pleas of guilty be entered to the charges on indictment SUP37/14 notwithstanding the appellant’s pleas of guilty made on 24 November 2014.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITY AS REGARDS PROCEDURE – where the appellant was charged with unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine and the dangerous drug cannabis – where the allocutus was administered in respect of both grounds on 2 March 2015 – where the administration of the allocutus proceeded upon a ruling made by another judge of the trial division on 10 December 2014, in reliance of s 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld), which directed that pleas of guilty be entered to the counts on the indictment notwithstanding that the appellant pleaded not guilty to them upon arraignment – where the ruling was made in circumstances where the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges in accordance with the registry committal procedure governed by s 114 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) where the appellant filed a notice to appeal against the convictions on 9 March 2015 – whether s 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld) applies to circumstances where a person has been committed for sentence upon a registry committal – whether the decision directing that pleas of guilty be entered to the charges on indictment SUP37/14 is wrong in law

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITY AS REGARDS PROCEDURE – where the appellant was charged with unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine and the dangerous drug cannabis – where the allocutus was administered in respect of both grounds on 2 March 2015 – where the administration of the allocutus proceeded upon a ruling made by another judge of the trial division on 10 December 2014, in reliance of s 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld), which directed that pleas of guilty be entered to the counts on the indictment notwithstanding that the appellant pleaded not guilty to them upon arraignment – where the ruling was made in circumstances where the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges in accordance with the registry committal procedure governed by s 114 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where the appellant filed a notice to appeal against the convictions…

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 Shipley

Details

AGLC: R v Shipley [2016] QCA 23
Case: [2016] QCA 23
Decision Date: 12 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Shipley involved the appellant who was charged with unlawful possession of the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine and cannabis. The appellant pleaded not guilty to these charges upon arraignment. Despite this, a ruling was made on 10 December 2014 by another judge of the trial division, under section 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld), that pleas of guilty be entered to the counts on the indictment. This ruling was made in circumstances where the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charges in accordance with the registry committal procedure governed by section 114 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The allocutus was administered on 2 March 2015, and the appellant filed a notice to appeal against the convictions on 9 March 2015. The appeal focused on whether section 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld) applies to situations where a person has been committed for sentence through a registry committal and whether the decision directing pleas of guilty be entered is legally flawed.

The central legal issue in the case was whether section 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld) applies to cases where a defendant has been committed for sentence through a registry committal procedure. This section allows for pleas of guilty to be entered even if the defendant initially pleaded not guilty. The court had to determine if this could be applied in circumstances where the defendant had previously pleaded guilty according to the registry committal procedure. The appellant argued that the ruling that directed the pleas of guilty be entered was in error, leading to a potential miscarriage of justice. The court needed to decide if the convictions could stand under these circumstances.

The court found that section 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld) does not apply to cases involving registry committals, where the defendant has already pleaded guilty. The ruling that directed pleas of guilty be entered was therefore deemed to be legally incorrect. This misapplication of the law led to a miscarriage of justice, as the convictions were based on an improper legal foundation. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions recorded on 9 March 2015, and also set aside the order made on 10 December 2014 that directed pleas of guilty be entered to the charges on indictment SUP37/14, despite the appellant's prior pleas of guilty.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Set aside the convictions recorded on 9 March 2015.

3. Set aside the order made on 10 December 2014 that pleas of guilty be entered to the charges on indictment SUP37/14 notwithstanding the appellant’s pleas of guilty made on 24 November 2014.

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 Shipley [2016] QCA 23
PARTIES:	R v SHIPLEY, Kathleen May (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 32 of 2015 SC No 37 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton – [2014] QSC 299
DELIVERED ON:	12 February 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 October 2015
JUDGES:	Gotterson JA and Peter Lyons and Dalton JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Allow the appeal. 2. Set aside the convictions recorded on 9 March 2015. 3. Set aside the order made on 10 December 2014 that pleas of guilty be entered to the charges on indictment SUP37/14 notwithstanding the appellant’s pleas of guilty made on 24 November 2014.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITY AS REGARDS PROCEDURE – where the appellant was charged with unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine and the dangerous drug cannabis – where the allocutus was administered in respect of both grounds on 2 March 2015 – where the administration of the allocutus proceeded upon a ruling made by another judge of the trial division on 10 December 2014, in reliance of s 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld), which directed that pleas of guilty be entered to the counts on the indictment notwithstanding that the appellant pleaded not guilty to them upon arraignment – where the ruling was made in circumstances where the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges in accordance with the registry committal procedure governed by s 114 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) where the appellant filed a notice to appeal against the convictions on 9 March 2015 – whether s 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld) applies to circumstances where a person has been committed for sentence upon a registry committal – whether the decision directing that pleas of guilty be entered to the charges on indictment SUP37/14 is wrong in law CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITY AS REGARDS PROCEDURE – where the appellant was charged with unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine and the dangerous drug cannabis – where the allocutus was administered in respect of both grounds on 2 March 2015 – where the administration of the allocutus proceeded upon a ruling made by another judge of the trial division on 10 December 2014, in reliance of s 600(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld), which directed that pleas of guilty be entered to the counts on the indictment notwithstanding that the appellant pleaded not guilty to them upon arraignment – where the ruling was made in circumstances where the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges in accordance with the registry committal procedure governed by s 114 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where the appellant filed a notice to appeal against the convictions…