R v Susan Samy

Case [2008] NSWDC 377
CITATION: R v Susan SAMY [2008] NSWDC 377
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
23 June 2008
JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ
DECISION: The applicant is granted leave to withdraw her plea of guilty
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - application for change of plea - analysis of relevant case law - applicant bears burden of proof - application to be approached cautiously and with circumspection - factual dispute - plea not attributable to a genuine consciousness of guilt
CASES CITED: Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
Regina v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472
Regina v Liberti (1951) 55 A Crim R 120
Regina v Sagsagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
Regina v Wilkes (2001) 122 A Crim R 310
PARTIES: Regina
Susan Samy
FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/21/3080
COUNSEL: Ms Orman-Hales (for Ms Samy)
SOLICITORS: Mr Cooley for the NSW Office of the Director of Public Proseecutions

JUDGMENT

1. The issue in this case is whether I exercise my discretion to set aside a plea of guilty entered by Ms Susan Samy to a charge of malicious wounding. On 11 May 2007 Ms Samy pleaded guilty to a charge that at Yagoona on 6 October 2006 she maliciously wounded Chandra Pal. Ms Samy now asks me through her counsel, Ms Orman-Hales, to set aside that plea of guilty. I have the undoubted discretion to set aside the plea. The question is whether I exercise that discretion or not.

2. The relevant principles are clear. In Regina v Sagsagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73 Lee J, as his Honour then was, speaking on behalf of the Court of Criminal Appeal said this:

          “The law regards a plea of guilty made by a person in possession of all the facts and intending to plead guilty as an admission of all the legal ingredients of the offence and is the most cogent admission of guilt that can be made, for the court is prepared to act upon it and proceed to conviction or final disposal of the proceeding.”
      In Regina v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120 Kirby J, when his Honour was President of the Court of Appeal, said on behalf of the Court of Criminal Appeal that an application to set aside a plea is approached by the courts:
          “ with caution bordering on circumspection. This attitude rests on the high public interest in the finality of legal proceedings and upon the principle that a plea of guilty by a person in possession of all the relevant facts is normally taken to be an admission by that person of the necessary legal ingredients of the offence.”
      In Regina v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472 Spigelman CJ, delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, noted that successful applications to set aside a plea of guilty were exceptional. Circumstances would normally involve a miscarriage of justice. His Honour identified a number of circumstances where such applications have been granted in the past.…

Continue reading R v Susan Samy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Susan Samy [2008] NSWDC 377
Case
[2008] NSWDC 377
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Susan Samy involved a dispute over the applicant's plea of guilty, which she sought to withdraw. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant, who had previously pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving occasioning death, should be permitted to withdraw her plea and enter a plea of not guilty instead.

The legal issues that the court had to decide revolved around the principles governing applications to change a plea of guilty. The court needed to determine whether the applicant had established a sufficient basis for permitting the withdrawal of her plea, considering the relevant legal authorities and the burden of proof on the applicant. The court also had to consider the implications of the applicant's change of plea on the fairness and efficiency of the trial process.

The court examined the relevant case law and held that the applicant bore the burden of proof to demonstrate that her change of plea was justified. The court was required to approach the application with caution and circumspection, given the importance of maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine consciousness of guilt, as her plea of guilty was attributable to a factual dispute rather than an acknowledgment of her criminal liability. Consequently, the court found that the applicant had established a sufficient basis for permitting the withdrawal of her plea. The court granted leave to the applicant to withdraw her plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant is granted leave to withdraw her plea of guilty. This decision allows the applicant to proceed with a plea of not guilty, thereby ensuring that the trial can address the factual dispute at the heart of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant is granted leave to withdraw her plea of guilty

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.