R v Young - [2002] VSCA 2

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 155 of 1998

THE QUEEN

PAUL CHARLES YOUNG

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P. and BUCHANAN and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 February 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 February 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 2 ---

Criminal law - Plea of guilty entered after voir dire - Judge sentencing prisoner on basis of the plea - Applicant thereafter appealing against conviction - Circumstances in which Court will entertain "conviction application" following informed plea of "guilty" - Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	In person
WINNEKE, P.:

The applicant, Paul Charles Young, a man in his forties, seeks leave to appeal against a conviction which was recorded against him in the County Court at Ballarat on 25 June 1998. The application has a significant history and, although I will not seek to recite it all, I will make reference to what seem to me to be the relevant aspects of it.
On 6 August 1996 the Director of Public Prosecutions made presentment against the applicant. The presentment at that stage contained five counts. Count 1 alleged against the applicant the handling of stolen goods, namely a Honda motor, between September 1994 and March 1995, counts 2, 3 and 4 alleged theft of various pieces of equipment and count 5 alleged attempted theft of certain fencing wire. It was alleged by the prosecutor that all of these offences involved the taking of goods or the handling of goods belonging to various mining companies carrying on their business in the general vicinity of Bendigo. On 5 March 1997 the applicant appeared before the Bendigo County Court before Judge Kellam (as he then was). The matter was adjourned to the following sittings at Bendigo. The applicant at that stage was representing himself but said that he had applied for legal aid and had a number of witnesses that he wished to call in the course of his trial. On 4 June 1997 the matter came on before Judge Campton in the Bendigo County Court. An application was made for a further adjournment and the applicant said he proposed to apply for legal aid. The matter was adjourned by Judge Campton to the Bendigo County Court on 27 October 1997. Ultimately the matter came back before the judge at Bendigo on 7 November 1997, when the Crown applied to have the matter transferred to the Ballarat sittings of the County Court in December 1997 because of the pressure of business existing in the Bendigo County Court. In late November 1997 the applicant had made a written application to the Director of Public Prosecutions, asking for the entry of a nolle prosequi. That application was declined by the Director and the matter was again listed for trial at the sittings of the Ballarat County Court in April 1998. By that time the applicant had been notified by…

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 Young

Details

AGLC: R v Young [2002] VSCA 2
Case: [2002] VSCA 2
Decision Date: 4 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Paul Charles Young, sought leave to appeal against a conviction recorded against him in the County Court at Ballarat. The applicant argued that he was denied natural justice and due process, that his plea was made under duress and was not made of his own free will, and that the judge's conclusions on the voir dire were rendered void and nugatory on the basis that the police evidence was perjured. The legal issue before the Court was whether the circumstances demonstrated a miscarriage of justice, which would warrant setting aside the conviction recorded after a plea of guilty.

The Court considered the circumstances in which an appellate court will set aside a conviction recorded after a plea of guilty, which are extremely rare and must demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that there was nothing in the transcript of proceedings which could lead to the conclusion that the applicant's plea of guilty was procured against his will or that he failed to understand its consequences. The applicant was represented by counsel of some experience and had given evidence on the voir dire. The Court also found that there was nothing in the events cited which could lead to the conclusion that a miscarriage of justice occurred before the County Court.

The Court rejected the application for leave to appeal against conviction, finding that the applicant was aware of what he was doing and why he was doing it when he pleaded guilty to the amended presentment. The Court found that counsel was acting on instructions, and nothing had been put before the Court which would suggest anything to the contrary. The formal order of the Court was that the application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

Orders