R v WBA (No 2) - [2018] QCA 360

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WBA (No 2) [2018] QCA 360

PARTIES:

R
v
WBA
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 96 of 2017
DC No 210 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Reference under s 672A Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 6 June 2014 (Richards DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 September 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Henry J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – where the appellant was charged with a number of sexual offences committed against his daughters – where the appellant pleaded guilty to 16 counts relating to these sexual offences – where the appellant submits that his pleas of guilty were made involuntarily and therefore a miscarriage of justice has arisen – where the appellant submits that he was pressured into pleading guilty by his legal representatives, statements made by the trial judge and his medical conditions – where the appellant and his legal representatives gave evidence in chief and in cross-examination at the hearing of the appeal – whether the evidence of the appellant ought to be accepted and, if it is accepted, whether his pleas of guilty were a miscarriage of justice

Liberti v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 120, cited
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied
Naniseni v The Queen [1971] NZLR 269, considered
R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400, considered
R v Inns (1974) 60 Cr App R 231, cited
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187; [1965] VicRp 26, considered

COUNSEL:

B Blond for the appellant
M R Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Stockley Pagano Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: The appellant was charged with numerous sexual offences against his three daughters. The indictment was split and, on 3 June 2014, a jury convicted him of several sexual offences committed against his youngest daughter, SWS. Richards DCJ was the presiding judge. Her Honour sentenced the appellant on the following day to an effective term of imprisonment of four years with parole eligibility on 3 June 2016.
On 5 June 2014 her Honour presided over the pre-recording of evidence from the appellant’s two older daughters, CWS and TWS, who were to be witnesses at the second trial.
On 6 June 2014 the appellant pleaded guilty before Richards DCJ to the remaining 16 sexual offences with which he had been charged. Her Honour sentenced him to five years imprisonment cumulative upon the sentence she had imposed after the trial. The effect of the sentences was that the appellant would serve nine years imprisonment with parole eligibility after four years.
The appellant appealed against his conviction for the offences of which he had been found guilty after trial. On 5 February 2015 this Court allowed that appeal and verdicts…

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 WBA (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v WBA (No 2) [2018] QCA 360
Case: [2018] QCA 360
Decision Date: 21 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v WBA (No 2) involved the appellant who had pleaded guilty to 16 counts of sexual offences committed against his daughters. The appellant sought to appeal against his conviction, arguing that his guilty pleas were not voluntary and amounted to a miscarriage of justice. He contended that he was pressured into pleading guilty by his legal representatives, statements made by the trial judge, and his medical conditions. Both the appellant and his legal representatives provided evidence during the hearing of the appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence provided by the appellant should be accepted and, if accepted, whether his guilty pleas constituted a miscarriage of justice. This involved an examination of the voluntariness of the pleas, the influence of external pressures, and the impact of the appellant's medical conditions on his decision-making process.

The court carefully considered the evidence and submissions presented. Ultimately, the court found that the appellant's evidence was not sufficiently compelling to warrant a conclusion that his pleas were not voluntary. The court determined that there was no basis to accept that the appellant's guilty pleas were made involuntarily, and therefore, no miscarriage of justice had occurred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court's final order was that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. No further appeal would lie against this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	R v WBA (No 2) [2018] QCA 360
PARTIES:	R v WBA (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 96 of 2017 DC No 210 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Reference under s 672A Criminal Code
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 6 June 2014 (Richards DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	21 December 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 September 2018
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Henry J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – where the appellant was charged with a number of sexual offences committed against his daughters – where the appellant pleaded guilty to 16 counts relating to these sexual offences – where the appellant submits that his pleas of guilty were made involuntarily and therefore a miscarriage of justice has arisen – where the appellant submits that he was pressured into pleading guilty by his legal representatives, statements made by the trial judge and his medical conditions – where the appellant and his legal representatives gave evidence in chief and in cross-examination at the hearing of the appeal – whether the evidence of the appellant ought to be accepted and, if it is accepted, whether his pleas of guilty were a miscarriage of justice Liberti v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 120, cited Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied Naniseni v The Queen [1971] NZLR 269, considered R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400, considered R v Inns (1974) 60 Cr App R 231, cited R v Murphy [1965] VR 187; [1965] VicRp 26, considered
COUNSEL:	B Blond for the appellant M R Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Stockley Pagano Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent