R v Williamson - [2012] QCA 139

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Williamson [2012] QCA 139

PARTIES:

R
v
WILLIAMSON, Christine Florence Michelle
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 165 of 2011
DC No 1010 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered ex tempore on 23 February 2012
Reasons and direction delivered on 29 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 February 2012

JUDGES:

Fraser and White JJA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Orders delivered ex tempore on 23 February 2012:

1.      Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

2.      Appeal against conviction is allowed.

3.      Conviction is set aside.

4.      New trial is ordered.

5.      An order as to bail is to be provided to the presiding Judge.

Direction of 29 May 2012:

1.     The Registrar provide a copy of these reasons to the Legal Services Commissioner.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant convicted on own plea of one count of torture and sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment with parole fixed – where appellant argued plea of guilty and conviction should be set aside because plea of guilty not attributable to genuine consciousness of guilt, or that it was not informed and voluntarily made on the basis of competent legal advice – where appellant argued she did not understand nature of charge – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 320A

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
R v Mundraby[2004] QCA 493, cited
R v Ping [2006] 2 Qd R 69; [2005] QCA 472, cited

COUNSEL:

A Edwards for the appellant
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: On 14 September 2010 the appellant was convicted on her own plea of guilty of one count of torture. After some evidence was called to resolve a contest about the facts upon which the appellant should be sentenced, on 24 May 2011 the appellant’s counsel told the sentencing judge that the appellant no longer pursued that contest. After hearing submissions, the sentencing judge sentenced the appellant to four and a half years imprisonment with eligibility for parole fixed at 23 February 2013.

The appellant appealed against her conviction. The grounds of her appeal were that her plea of guilty and her conviction should be set aside because her plea of guilty was not attributable to a genuine consciousness of guilt of the offence of torture, or it was not an informed and voluntary plea made on the basis of competent legal advice, such that to allow the plea of guilty to stand would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The Court received affidavit…

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 Williamson

Details

AGLC: R v Williamson [2012] QCA 139
Case: [2012] QCA 139
Decision Date: 23 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williamson involved an appellant who had pleaded guilty to one count of torture and was subsequently sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment with parole. The appellant appealed against both her conviction and the sentence imposed, arguing that the plea of guilty was not attributable to a genuine consciousness of guilt and that it was not informed and voluntarily made on the basis of competent legal advice. She also contended that she did not understand the nature of the charge, and therefore, a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plea of guilty was made with an understanding of the consequences and the nature of the charge, and if there was any miscarriage of justice that warranted setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial. The court needed to determine if the appellant's plea was informed and voluntary, and if the conviction could be sustained in light of the arguments presented.

In delivering the decision, the court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was not informed and voluntarily made, and there was a significant misunderstanding of the nature of the charge. The court held that the plea did not reflect a genuine consciousness of guilt, and thus, there was a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal against the conviction, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The court also refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

In summary, the court granted the appeal against conviction, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that pleas of guilty are made with a full understanding of the charges and the consequences of such a plea. The court's directions included providing a copy of these reasons to the Legal Services Commissioner.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders delivered ex tempore on 23 February 2012:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

2. Appeal against conviction is allowed.

3. Conviction is set aside.

4. New trial is ordered.

5. An order as to bail is to be provided to the presiding Judge.

Direction of 29 May 2012:

1. The Registrar provide a copy of these reasons to the Legal Services Commissioner.

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 Williamson [2012] QCA 139
PARTIES:	R v WILLIAMSON, Christine Florence Michelle (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 165 of 2011 DC No 1010 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	Orders delivered ex tempore on 23 February 2012 Reasons and direction delivered on 29 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 February 2012
JUDGES:	Fraser and White JJA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Orders delivered ex tempore on 23 February 2012: 1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. 2. Appeal against conviction is allowed. 3. Conviction is set aside. 4. New trial is ordered. 5. An order as to bail is to be provided to the presiding Judge. Direction of 29 May 2012: 1. The Registrar provide a copy of these reasons to the Legal Services Commissioner.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant convicted on own plea of one count of torture and sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment with parole fixed – where appellant argued plea of guilty and conviction should be set aside because plea of guilty not attributable to genuine consciousness of guilt, or that it was not informed and voluntarily made on the basis of competent legal advice – where appellant argued she did not understand nature of charge – whether there was a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 320A Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited R v Mundraby[2004] QCA 493, cited R v Ping [2006] 2 Qd R 69; [2005] QCA 472, cited
COUNSEL:	A Edwards for the appellant V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bosscher Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent