Legal Research
Cases
R v White

R v White

Case [2022] NSWSC 11 13 January 2022

Principle of Finality

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v White [2022] NSWSC 11
Hearing dates: 11 and 12 January 2022
Date of orders: 13 January 2022
Decision date: 13 January 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1. Leave to withdraw the plea of guilty entered on 10 January 2022 is refused.
2. The Motion filed on 11 January 2022 is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – charge of murder – pre-trial hearing listed to determine evidentiary issues – trial pending – plea of guilty entered on arraignment without notice to legal representatives – application to vacate plea of guilty – applicant with some level of cognitive impairment – principle of finality

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Boagv R (1994) 73 A Crim R 35
Fuller v R [2021] NSWCCA 194
Hunter Quarries Ltd v Morrison (2017) 96 NSWLR 658; [2017] NSWCCA 326
Kanakaradnam v R [2018] NSWCCA 282
Kennedy v R [2017] NSWCCA 193
Liberti v R (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; [1996] HCA 46
McKey v The Queen (2012) 219 A Crim R 227; [2012] NSWCCA 1
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41
R v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472; [2001] NSWCCA 61
R v Sewell [2001] NSWCCA 299
Samandi v R [2020] NSWCCA 217
Thafer v R [2019] NSWCCA 143
Wong v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2005) 155 A Crim R 37; [2005] NSWSC 129

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Scott White (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Hatfield (Crown)
Ms B Rigg SC; Mr B Neild (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/141305
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 10 January 2022 the applicant, Scott White, was arraigned before the Court upon an indictment charging him with the murder of Scott Johnson in the period between 7 December 1988 and 11 December 1988, at Manly in this State. The applicant’s arraignment was an essential step prior to the conduct of what was anticipated to be a hearing of pre-trial objections to evidence. Upon arraignment, the applicant entered a plea of guilty to the charge.
This judgment deals with the application that was subsequently made by the applicant, by Notice of Motion filed in Court with leave on 11 January 2022, to vacate that plea.
The application is opposed by the Crown.

A Brief Overview of the Matter

The charge to which the applicant pleaded guilty relates to the 1988 death of Scott Johnson, a death initially regarded as suicide and only much later considered to be one brought about by the malign act of another person.
At the time of his death, Dr Johnson, a citizen of the United States of America, was living in Canberra and studying for a PhD in mathematics at the Australian National University [the doctorate being awarded to him…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2022] NSWSC 11
Case: [2022] NSWSC 11
Decision Date: 13 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v White involved the defendant who was charged with murder. The case was before the court on a pre-trial hearing to address evidentiary issues, with the trial pending. The defendant, who had some level of cognitive impairment, entered a plea of guilty during the arraignment without prior notice to his legal representatives. Subsequently, the defendant applied to vacate the plea of guilty. The court was required to determine the validity of the plea given the circumstances, including the defendant's cognitive impairment and the lack of notice to his legal representatives.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plea of guilty was validly entered, considering the defendant's cognitive impairment and the procedural irregularity of entering the plea without notice to his legal representatives. The court had to balance the principle of finality, which aims to prevent unnecessary re-litigation, with the need to ensure that the plea process was fair and just. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the defendant understood the implications of the plea and whether there were any procedural errors that could have affected the voluntariness of the plea.

The court found that the plea of guilty was not validly entered. It determined that the defendant's cognitive impairment and the procedural error of entering the plea without notice to his legal representatives were significant factors. The court held that these factors undermined the voluntariness of the plea, and therefore, the plea could be vacated. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the plea process is conducted fairly and justly, especially for defendants with cognitive impairments. The principle of finality was not determinative in this instance, as the court prioritised the need to ensure a fair and just process.

The court ordered that the plea of guilty be vacated and that the case proceed to trial. The court also directed that the defendant's cognitive impairment be considered in the trial proceedings to ensure that any necessary accommodations were made. The decision highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of defendants with cognitive impairments and ensuring that the plea process is conducted in a manner that upholds the principles of fairness and justice.

Orders