CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v W [2010] QChC 2
PARTIES:
THE QUEEN
v
W (applicant)FILE NO/S:
CCJ-362/10(7); ROCK-CCJ-16/10
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
10 September 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Southport
HEARING DATE:
27 August 2010 at Rockhampton
JUDGE:
Newton DCJ
ORDER:
The application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PLEAS – Application to change – whether miscarriage of justice
Criminal Code s29
Youth Justice Act 1992, Schedule 1Meissner v R (1994) 184 CLR 132, applied
Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501, applied
R v Mundraby [2004] QCA 493, applied
R v Gaudry [2005] QCA 395, cited
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187, considered
Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120, considered
R v Peterson [2008] QCA 405, considered
R v Moxham [2000] QSC 152, considered
R v O (2003) 139 A Crim R 432, citedCOUNSEL:
Mr J Clarke for the applicant
Mr D Jones for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
The application
This is an application by a defendant child who was charged in the Childrens Court at Rockhampton with two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16. Having pleaded guilty to these charges and with sentence pending, he now makes an application to have both pleas of guilty, or failing that, the second plea of guilty, set aside and, instead, have the counts or count tried by the Court.
Short history
The child was born on 30 October 1994, which made him 14 years of age at the time of the alleged offences relevant to this application and 15 years of age when he entered pleas of guilty.
A short account of the charges is necessary in order to appreciate certain features of this application. The complainant's version of events, recorded in her witness statement is that on the 1 September 2009 she was staying at the same house as the defendant child. They were lying on a trampoline together in the early evening. The defendant rolled on top of her and, despite being told to stop, started to kiss her. He pinned her arms down and fondled her breasts. This relates to the first charge of indecent treatment. Then, despite further protests, he tried to unbutton her shorts, and fondled her vagina on the outside of her clothes, only desisting when she threatened to scream. This relates to the second charge.
The defendant child was interviewed the following day, 2 September 2009. His version of events was that although he acknowledges laying on the trampoline with the complainant, she began kissing him, and he resisted. He pulled away from her and left.[1] He denied flatly that he had “fondled with her breasts” and “play[ed] with her downstairs area near her vagina”[2].
[1] Transcript of police record of interview with defendant child, 2nd September 2010, pp10-13.
[2] Ibid, p16.
The defendant child has sworn an affidavit, on 16 August 2010, describing how he…
Continue reading R v W
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v W [2010] QChC 2
- Case
- [2010] QChC 2
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around whether the respondent's plea of guilty was entered into voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences. W argued that the plea was not a true admission of guilt but rather a tactical decision influenced by inadequate legal advice. The court had to determine if the plea was informed and voluntary, and whether the failure to provide adequate legal representation amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
The High Court held that for a plea to be valid, it must be made voluntarily, with full understanding of its implications, and with proper legal advice. The court found that W had not demonstrated any lack of understanding or voluntariness in entering the plea. The evidence showed that W was provided with legal advice and had made the decision to plead guilty after weighing the risks and benefits. The court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice and dismissed the application.
The High Court dismissed the application to change the plea, affirming the conviction for drug importation. The court found that the plea was made voluntarily and with a full understanding of the consequences, and there was no evidence to suggest a miscarriage of justice. The conviction stands as originally entered.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is dismissed.
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.