R v Vinck - [2015] QDC 35

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Vinck [2015] QDC 35

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
-v-
BRETT PETER VINCK

FILE NO/S:

Ind. 264/14

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

23 February 2015

JUDGE:

MORZONE QC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Order that pleas of guilty be entered in respect of counts 1 and 2 on Indictment 264/14 notwithstanding the defendant’s pleas of not guilty entered on 23 February 2015.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – PLEAS - where the defendant pleaded guilty to offences by way of registry committal –where the defendant subsequently pleaded not guilty to the charges on arraignment in the District Court – where the defendant seeks a direction that not guilty pleas be entered notwithstanding the pleas of guilty entered by way of a registry committal in the Magistrates Court.

Legislation

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 408C, 661, 535, 590AA, 597C, 600
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 114

Cases

R v Shipley [2014] QSC 299
R v GV [2006] QCA 394

Meissner v R (1996) 184 CLR 501
Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501
Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372

COUNSEL:

Mr G Webber for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr Feeney for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Wettenhall Silva Solicitors for the defendant

The defendant has applied pursuant to s 590AA(2)(e) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) for a direction that pleas of not guilty be entered in respect of count 1 and 2 on Indictment 264/14 notwithstanding the respondent’s pleas of guilty entered accordance with the registry committal procedure in the Magistrates Court at Atherton.

Background

The defendant filed an Acknowledgement of plea from dated 10 February 2014 in accordance with the registry committal procedure. The defendant entered pleas of guilty to both counts at the registry committal hearing in the Magistrates Court in Atherton on 4 March 2014.

The procedure is governed by s 114 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). By its nature an allocutus is not made and there has been no formal pronouncement of judgment of conviction.

An indictment was presented to the District Court at Cairns on 19 June 2014 charging the defendant:

1. Count 1 – that on the third day of October, 2013 at ATHERTON in the State of Queensland PAUL HUTCHINSON and BRETT PETER VINCK wilfully and unlawfully set fire to a motor vehicle.

2. Court 2 – that on the third day of October, 2013 at ATHERTON in the State of Queensland PAUL HUTCHINSON and BRETT PETER VINCK attempted to dishonestly gain a sum of money for themselves.

At the commencement of the hearing of the application the defendant was called upon to enter a plea in respect of each count on the indictment. The defendant was arraigned by audio link pursuant to s 597C of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), at which time he pleaded not guilty to each count.

Relevant…

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 Vinck

Details

AGLC: R v Vinck [2015] QDC 35
Case: [2015] QDC 35
Decision Date: 24 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vinck involved a defendant who initially pleaded guilty to certain charges by way of a registry committal in the Magistrates Court. Subsequently, upon being arraigned in the District Court, the defendant changed his plea to not guilty. The defendant sought a direction from the court to enter not guilty pleas in lieu of the earlier pleas of guilty. The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant could alter his plea from guilty to not guilty and if the court could direct the entry of not guilty pleas despite the earlier pleas of guilty.

The court considered the principles of plea bargaining and the defendant's rights in the context of the change of plea. It was noted that while a defendant has the right to change their plea, the court must also consider the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. The court examined the circumstances under which a plea might be altered and the implications for the prosecution and the administration of justice. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant's change of plea could be accommodated, but only if it was in the interests of justice to do so. The court concluded that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the pleas of guilty to stand, as this would uphold the integrity of the judicial process and prevent unnecessary delay.

The court found that it was appropriate to order that the pleas of guilty entered in the Magistrates Court be maintained. This decision was based on the principle that the court should not lightly allow a defendant to alter their plea, especially when it might prejudice the prosecution or disrupt the orderly administration of justice. The court's decision reflected a balance between the defendant's rights and the need to ensure a fair and efficient judicial process. The court's final order was that pleas of guilty be entered in respect of counts 1 and 2 on Indictment 264/14, notwithstanding the defendant’s pleas of not guilty entered on 23 February 2015.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order that pleas of guilty be entered in respect of counts 1 and 2 on Indictment 264/14 notwithstanding the defendant’s pleas of not guilty entered on 23 February 2015.

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 Vinck [2015] QDC 35
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN -v- BRETT PETER VINCK
FILE NO/S:	Ind. 264/14
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	24 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	23 February 2015
JUDGE:	MORZONE QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Order that pleas of guilty be entered in respect of counts 1 and 2 on Indictment 264/14 notwithstanding the defendant’s pleas of not guilty entered on 23 February 2015.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – PLEAS - where the defendant pleaded guilty to offences by way of registry committal –where the defendant subsequently pleaded not guilty to the charges on arraignment in the District Court – where the defendant seeks a direction that not guilty pleas be entered notwithstanding the pleas of guilty entered by way of a registry committal in the Magistrates Court. Legislation Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 408C, 661, 535, 590AA, 597C, 600 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 114 Cases R v Shipley [2014] QSC 299 R v GV [2006] QCA 394 Meissner v R (1996) 184 CLR 501 Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501 Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
COUNSEL:	Mr G Webber for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Feeney for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Wettenhall Silva Solicitors for the defendant