Regina v I R Hall - [2005] NSWSC 889

CITATION:
Regina v I R Hall [2005] NSWSC 889

HEARING DATE(S): 15/12/04
17/12/04
21/2/05
22/2/05
23/2/05
24/2/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

2 March 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division
Criminal List

JUDGMENT OF:
Kirby J

DECISION:
(1) Mr Hall given leave to withdraw his plea of guilty in respect of count 1 in the indictment presented on 7 July 2004; (2) The matter to be placed in the Arraignment List before Justice Barr on Friday 1 April 2005.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Practice & Procedure - application to withdraw plea of guilty to charge under s1307 Corporations Act 2001 (falsifying company books) - whether a real question to be tried.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Corporations Act 2001
Crimes Act 1914

CASES CITED:
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501
R v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
R v Boskovitz (unreported, NSW CCA, 19.8.96)
R v Murphy (1965) VR 187
R v Davies (unreported, NSW CCA, 16.12.93)
Boag (1994) 73 A Crim R 35
R v Frawley (NSWSC, 9.9.04, unreported)
R v Frawley [2005] NSWCCA 66
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
R v Favero [1999] NSWCCA 320
R v Vergara [1999] NSWCCA 352
R v Hall (NSWSC, unreported, 29.6.04)
R v Hannes 43 ACSR 508
R v Rivkin [2003] NSWSC 447; [2004] NSWCCA 7
R v Damien Parkes [2004] NSWCCA 377

PARTIES:
Regina
Ian Robert Hall

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2003/45

COUNSEL:
P W Neil SC (Crown)
I R Hall (In Person)

SOLICITORS:
Ms K Marinos - Cth DPP (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

JUSTICE DAVID KIRBY

Wednesday 2 March 2005

2003/45 SCRM - REGINA v Ian Robert HALL
JUDGMENT - On application to withdraw plea of Guilty.

1 KIRBY J: On 7 July 2004, Ian Robert Hall appeared before Davidson AJ charged with the following offences:

Corporations Act

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 I R Hall

Details

AGLC: Regina v I R Hall [2005] NSWSC 889
Case: [2005] NSWSC 889
Decision Date: 2 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was Regina versus I R Hall, which was heard in the relevant court. The defendant, I R Hall, faced a charge under section 1307 of the Corporations Act 2001 for falsifying company books. The primary issue before the court was whether there was a real question to be tried, given the defendant's application to withdraw his plea of guilty. This application was made on the basis that the defendant had only recently obtained legal representation and had not been fully informed of the consequences of his plea.

The court needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant genuinely believed there was a real question to be tried that could potentially lead to an acquittal. This involved assessing the circumstances under which the plea was entered and the extent to which the defendant was aware of the potential legal and factual issues at the time. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's lack of legal representation at the time of the plea significantly impacted his understanding of the proceedings and the charges against him.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the defendant's affidavit, the evidence provided, and the legal principles governing pleas of guilty. The court concluded that while the defendant had a case to answer, there was a real question to be tried concerning the extent of his knowledge and intent. The court found that the defendant's application to withdraw his plea of guilty was not without merit, as there were genuine issues that warranted further investigation. Consequently, the court allowed the application and scheduled a trial date for the defendant to have his case heard fully.

Orders