R v Stevie Mambor

[2010] ACTSC 30

R v STEVIE MAMBOR
[2010] ACTSC 30 (9 April 2010)

CRIMINAL LAW – application to change plea of guilty to not guilty – accused charged with committing an act of indecency – no conviction yet recorded – whether a miscarriage of justice will occur – whether the accused understood the charges and the facts alleged – initial plea made voluntarily – whether any circumstances undermine the integrity of the plea – suggestions of racial prejudice and age disparity – need to balance with the achievement of finality for the victim – no good cause for setting plea aside – no circumstances to infer a miscarriage of justice will occur – application refused – sentence to proceed on basis of the plea entered

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT)

R v Fearnside [2009] ACTCA 3 (24 February 2009)
R v Gomez [2006] ACTCA 18 (4 October 2006)
R v Holton (2004) 41 MVR 89
Meissner v R [1995] HCA 41, 184 CLR 132, 157
Norvenska v DPP (Cth) [2007] NSWCCA 158

No. SCC 315 of 2007

Judge:             Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              9 April 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 315 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          

THE QUEEN

v

STEVIE MAMBOR

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  9 April 2010
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is refused. 

1. Sentencing will proceed on the basis of the plea entered.

1. The accused was on 5 March 2008 prosecuted on an indictment alleging that on 6 December 2006 at Canberra

… [he] did engage in sexual intercourse with a person, [name suppressed] the said [person] then being a person above the age of ten years but under the age of sixteen years, namely fifteen years of age.

AND FURTHER THAT between 5 December 2006 and 6 December 2006 at Canberra aforesaid [he] did supply cannabis to a child, namely [that person].

1. On 27 May 2008, the accused entered a plea of not guilty to each count.  6 August 2008 was allocated as the trial date.  The accused, a West Papuan national, would, it was noted, require an interpreter.

1. On 24 July 2008, application was made before me, on behalf of the accused, to vacate the trial date for the purposes, it was said, of enabling the accused to elect for trial by judge alone.  I refused that application.  It is now apparent that there was no discretion to grant it – see R v Fearnside [2009] ACTCA 3 (24 February 2009).

1. Then, on 6 August 2008, the date fixed for trial, the Crown sought and was granted leave to withdraw that indictment and substitute another of that date.  This new indictment alleged that, on 6 December 2006, at Canberra, the accused

… did commit an act of indecency on another person, namely [name suppressed], without the consent of that person and knowing that the said [name suppressed] did not consent to the…