Regina v Bond - [2002] NSWSC 786

CITATION: REGINA v. BOND [2002] NSWSC 786

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70011 of 2002

HEARING DATE(S): 29 May 2002; 30 August 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 August 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
William Charles BOND

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P. Lynch
Acc: P. Zahra, SC.

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Acc: D.J. Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - murder - plea of guilty - application to withdraw plea - pressures on accused person such that integrity of plea impugned.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED: Hura [2001] NSWCCA 61
Wilkes [2001] NSWCCA 97
Chiron (1980) 1 NSWLR 218
Mitchell (CCA, unreported 25 July 1995)
Iral [1999] NSWCCA 368
Davies (CCA, unreported 16 December 1993)

DECISION: I permit the applicant to withdraw the plea of guilty to the charge of murder. I vacate that plea.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 30 AUGUST 2002

No. 70011 of 2002

REGINA v. WILLIAM CHARLES BOND
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the accused, William Charles Bond, who had pleaded guilty to murder before me on 29 May 2002 to withdraw that plea.

2 In support of the application there has been filed the affidavit of Timothy John Heenan sworn 27 August 2002 and Exhibit 1, a psychiatric report dated 20 August 2002 from Dr. Bruce Westmore.

3 On 29 May 2002, I remanded the applicant in custody for submissions on sentence. Subsequently on the application of the applicant's senior counsel, the matter was adjourned from time to time until it was re-listed before me today for the purpose of this application.

4 The learned Crown Prosecutor informs me that there is no objection to any of the material upon which the applicant relies, nor is there any challenge to any of the matters asserted in that material. Further, that it is the attitude of the Crown that the application is not opposed, although not consented to. I am informed that the Crown accepts there is an arguable basis of defence and at the time of the plea was informed of the accused's counsel's reservations.

5 It is expressly conceded by the learned Crown Prosecutor that the situation with which I now have to deal is not that considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Regina v. Hura [2001] NSWCCA 61 or in Regina v. Wilkes [2001] NSWCCA 97. Both of the those cases were concerned with an examination by a Court of Criminal Appeal of a trial judge's decision not to permit the withdrawal of a plea of guilty made during a trial. Those pleas necessarily attracted the operation of s.91 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, which section provides by subsection (1) that:-

“In the event of a person wishing to plead 'guilty' to an offence at any time after having been given in to the charge of a jury and the court accepting the plea, the court is to discharge…

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 Regina v Bond

Details

AGLC: Regina v Bond [2002] NSWSC 786
Case: [2002] NSWSC 786
Decision Date: 30 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Bond involved the accused, Bond, who pleaded guilty to a charge of murder. The prosecution sought to rely on the guilty plea in a subsequent case against an associate of the accused. Bond then applied to withdraw his plea, asserting that he had been under significant pressure when he entered the plea and that this pressure impugned the integrity of the plea. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue was whether the court should permit the withdrawal of the guilty plea on the grounds that the plea was not made voluntarily due to the accused being under undue pressure.
The court considered the nature and extent of the pressures exerted on Bond at the time of the plea. It examined whether these pressures amounted to a significant factor that undermined the voluntariness of the plea. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that pleas are made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences. In reaching its decision, the court weighed the public interest in finality of proceedings against the need to ensure that justice is served by permitting the withdrawal of a plea that was not truly voluntary. Ultimately, the court determined that the plea could not be withdrawn as the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the plea was not voluntary due to the alleged pressures. The integrity of the plea was upheld, and the guilty plea was confirmed.

Orders