R v Wade

Case [2011] QCA 289

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wade [2011] QCA 289

PARTIES:

R
v
WADE, Bowan Taylor
(appellant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 49 of 2011
SC No 29 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

18 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 October 2011

JUDGES:

Muir and Chesterman JJA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal be allowed.

2.   The appellant’s guilty plea be set aside.

3.   The appellant’s conviction be set aside.

4.   There be a re-trial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – PLEAS – GENERAL PLEAS – PLEA OF GUILTY – WITHDRAWAL AND RESTORATION OF PLEA – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted of murder on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment – where the appellant told his legal representatives prior to trial that he intended to plead not guilty – where there was psychological evidence that the appellant experienced a heightened state of arousal when confronted with a situation for which he was not prepared and did not deal well with large crowds of people – where the appellant had requested to not be present at his trial – where the appellant requested that his legal representatives provide him with witness statements to read during the trial so as to distract him from his environment – where the appellant consistently maintained to his legal representatives that he was not guilty of murder – where the appellant made admissions of guilt to a number of people, including police – where the admissions were inconsistent and did not accord with medical evidence – whether the appellant should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty – whether the conviction for murder gave rise to a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23, s 302, s 668E(1)

Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254, considered
Collins v R (1980) 31 ALR 257; [1980] FCA 72, considered
Hogue v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 102, cited
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered
R v Carkeet [2009] 1 Qd R 190; [2008] QCA 143, considered
R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218, considered
R v Gadaloff [1999] QCA 286, cited
R v Mundraby [2004] QCA 493, considered
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187; [1965] VicRp 26, considered
R v Nerbas [2011] QSC 41, cited
Rotner v R [2011] NSWCCA 207, considered

COUNSEL:

P E Smith, with K M Hillard, for the appellant
T A Fuller SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MUIR JA:  Introduction On 21 March 2011 the appellant was convicted of murder on his plea of guilty and the sentence of life imprisonment mandated by s 302 of the

Continue reading R v Wade

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Wade [2011] QCA 289
Case
[2011] QCA 289
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wade came before the court as an appeal against the appellant's conviction for murder. The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment following his plea of guilty. However, the appellant had informed his legal representatives prior to the trial that he intended to plead not guilty. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty and whether the conviction for murder resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issues in this case involved the appellant's capacity to understand and maintain his plea of guilty. The court needed to consider the psychological evidence presented, which indicated that the appellant experienced heightened arousal in unprepared situations and had difficulty dealing with large crowds. The appellant had requested not to be present at his trial and wanted his legal representatives to provide him with witness statements to read during the trial to distract him from his environment. Furthermore, the appellant consistently maintained to his legal representatives that he was not guilty of murder, despite making admissions of guilt to others, including police. The admissions were inconsistent and did not align with the medical evidence.

The court determined that the appellant's psychological condition and the circumstances surrounding his plea of guilty warranted allowing the withdrawal of the plea. The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was not voluntarily made and that his conviction for murder gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant's guilty plea and conviction, and ordered a re-trial.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the appellant's guilty plea be set aside, the appellant's conviction be set aside, and there be a re-trial. The court's decision recognised the importance of ensuring that a plea of guilty is made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences, particularly in light of the appellant's psychological condition.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The appellant’s guilty plea be set aside.

3. The appellant’s conviction be set aside.

4. There be a re-trial.

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.