R v Stevens - [2011] SASC 69

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v STEVENS
[2011] SASC 69
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Kelly
29 April 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - PLEAS - GENERAL PLEAS - PLEA OF GUILTY - WITHDRAWAL AND RESTORATION OF PLEA
Applicant entered plea of guilty on morning of trial – applicant later dismissed counsel and made an application to withdraw his guilty plea – consideration of the principles governing the exercise of discretion to withdraw a guilty plea.
Held: applicant understood factual and legal issues on which he entered plea of guilty – no miscarriage of justice – application refused.
R v Pugh (2005) 158 A Crim R 302; R v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472; R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120, discussed.
R v Brooks (2007) 96 SASR 478; R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231; R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218; R v Murphy [1965] VR 187; R v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73; R v Cincotta (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, Hunt CJ, Grove and Allen JJ, 1 November 1995); Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501; R v Davies (1993) 19 MVR 481; R v Ganderton (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, Sully, Sperling and James JJ, 17 September 1998); R v Favero [1999] NSWCCA 320, considered.

R v STEVENS
[2011] SASC 69
Criminal:
KELLY J.

The applicant Warren Craig Stevens was charged with the attempted murder of Robert Staehr. He was also charged in the alternative with causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm to Mr Staehr.
On the morning his trial was due to commence the applicant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm and the Director of Public Prosecutions then entered a nolle prosequi on the attempted murder charge.
After the allocutus was read the applicant’s then counsel, Mr Healy, requested a six week adjournment in order to obtain medical and other reports and to present submissions on sentence. The applicant was then remanded in custody until 7 December 2010 for further consideration.
On 29 November 2010 the matter was listed at the request of Mr Healy who indicated in his client’s absence that he would not be able to obtain a presentence report by 7 December but would be able to do so by 15 December. He requested an adjournment accordingly. The matter was then adjourned until 21 December 2010 for submissions.
On Friday 17 December 2010 the matter was again called on and Mr Healy advised that both he and his instructing solicitor, Mr Dibden had ceased to act for the applicant in light of the fact that their instructions had been formally withdrawn by him.
On that day the applicant who was thereafter unrepresented said:
Well, firstly I would like to say that I very much like Tim Dibden and Nicholas Healy and unfortunately, although I have a…

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 Stevens

Details

AGLC: R v Stevens [2011] SASC 69
Case: [2011] SASC 69
Decision Date: 29 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stevens involved the applicant, who initially entered a plea of guilty on the morning of his trial. Following this, the applicant dismissed his counsel and sought to withdraw his guilty plea. The court was required to consider the principles that govern the exercise of discretion in allowing such a withdrawal. The central issue was whether the applicant genuinely understood the factual and legal bases of the plea, and if permitting the withdrawal would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the evidence to determine if the applicant's plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. The applicant claimed he was directed by his lawyers to plead guilty against his wishes and that he did not read the instructions document signed on 8 November 2010, citing emotional distress and mental unfitness at the time. He further alleged that he was not provided with a summary of the prosecution evidence beforehand and that he signed the document under duress, not fully understanding the charge or its severity. Despite these claims, the court found that the applicant had met with his lawyers on the day in question, although he admitted to only superficial discussions prior to that date. He also conceded that his friend was present during the meeting but only as a social visitor.

The court concluded that the applicant did understand the factual and legal issues upon which he entered his plea of guilty. It found that permitting the withdrawal of the plea would not result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application to withdraw the plea was refused. The applicant's understanding of the charge and the potential penalty, despite his claims of distress and lack of clarity, was deemed sufficient for the plea to stand.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

With these principles in mind I turn to examine the evidence about the circumstances in which the present application was made. The Evidence The applicant has, in effect, claimed that he was directed by his lawyers to enter a plea of guilty against his expressed wish to proceed to trial. When he was asked about the instructions he signed on 8 November 2010 he said he did not read the document, in fact he refused to read the document even though both his lawyers advised him of the importance of reading the document right through. He said he was mentally not in a position to do anything that day as he was very upset and emotional at the time. He denied that he was ever given a summary of the prosecution evidence prior to 8 November 2010 and says that 8 November 2010 was the first time he saw the document which he later signed. In examination in chief the applicant said that the first time he had met Mr Healy to discuss the charges was on 8 November 2010. Later he conceded that he had met Mr Healy and Mr Dibden prior to that date but there was only chit-chat about social matters and they discussed tips for the Melbourne Cup. He agreed that his friend Ms Karen Olsson attended for at least part of the meeting on 8 November 2010. She was there as a friend and for no other purpose. The applicant maintained that he had spent not much more than an hour with both Mr Healy and Mr Dibden on 8 November. He said the first time he saw the document, which he signed later that day, was when he came back from lunch and the document had been prepared for his signature. He said he signed it under duress. He did not understand the charge of causing serious harm with intent or the severity of it. He said he could not get an answer from his counsel about what sort of penalty was involved:QWhat did you understand would happen if you were to plead guilty to that particular charge.AI had absolutely no idea. I was trying to find out what sort of penalty, but Mr Healy, he inferred that I might get off with something as little as some home detention and a suspended sentence. But he really – I felt that he was avoiding being clear with me with what the penalty could be for that. So I didn’t have much idea at all. The only thing clear I got from him was the words ‘a fair whack’ which I now know is a fair bit of time, but I didn’t really understand what ‘a fair whack’ meant. The applicant agreed that he had a break at one point when he left the office. He said he wanted to discuss the suggested plea with his correctional services officer, however when he could not see him, he went to a chemist and bought some diazepam which he took, apparently in larger quantities than prescribed. He said by the time he arrived back at the offices of Mr Healy and Mr Dibden he was still crying and shaking. In fact he was crying so much he could not read the document as he signed it. However he maintained that he had refused to read the document in any event. When he was asked about the amendments that appear on page three initialled by him he agreed that he did correct the document at that point where he felt it did not accurately record what he had said. He only had a quick flick of those first two pages and he did not read the last pages of the document.

Decision

Reasons for decision

KELLY J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.