Legal Research
Cases
Ritchie v The Queen

Ritchie v The Queen

Case [2017] NSWCCA 21 3 March 2017

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ritchie v R [2017] NSWCCA 21
Hearing dates: 17 February 2017
Date of orders: 17 February 2017
Decision date: 03 March 2017
Before: Simpson JA at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Fagan J at [38]
Decision:
1. Appeal allowed and conviction and sentence quashed.
2. New trial ordered.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - plea of guilty to charge of (deemed) supply of commercial quantity of a prohibited drug - whether miscarriage of justice would result if Applicant not permitted to withdraw plea of guilty - imprudent and inappropriate advice given to Applicant - plea of guilty not attributable to consciousness of guilt - real question concerning Applicant’s guilt - Crown concession that conviction appeal should be allowed - appeal allowed and conviction quashed - new trial ordered
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Dyers v The Queen [2002] HCA 45; 210 CLR 285
MM v R [2016] NSWCCA 235
R v Masri [2005] NSWCCA 330
R v Rae (No. 2) [2005] NSWCCA 380; 157 A Crim R 182
R v Wilkes [2001] NSWCCA 97; 122 A Crim R 310
Thalari v R [2009] NSWCCA 170; 75 NSWLR 307
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brett Stanley Ritchie (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr GR James AM QC; Ms E Tringali (Applicant)
Ms T Smith (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/186070
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Date of Decision:

10 November 2015

Before:

Ellis DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/186070

Judgment

SIMPSON JA: The reasons of Johnson J reflect my reasons for joining in the orders of 17 February 2017.
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Brett Stanley Ritchie, sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence in the District Court upon a charge of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug contrary to ss.25(2) and 29 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
Following a plea of guilty, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years and four months, comprising a non-parole period of 18 months commencing on 9 November 2015 and expiring on 8 May 2017 with an additional term of one year and 10 months expiring on 8 March 2019. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 20 years with a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

The Appeal to this Court

By Notice of Appeal filed on 25 October 2016, the Applicant relied upon the following grounds of appeal:

Ground 1 - there was a miscarriage of justice.

Ground 2 - the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The claim of miscarriage of justice related to the Applicant’s plea of guilty to the charge for which he was sentenced.
In advance of the hearing in this Court, the Crown filed fair and balanced written submissions in which it was accepted, after an…

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 Ritchie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ritchie v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 21
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 21
Decision Date: 03 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ritchie sought leave to appeal against his conviction on a charge of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Ritchie had pleaded guilty to the charge but now sought to withdraw his plea on the basis that he had been given inappropriate advice at the time, which led him to enter a guilty plea without being aware of his true position. The Crown conceded that Ritchie's appeal should be allowed.

The court needed to determine whether a miscarriage of justice would result if Ritchie was not permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty. It was also necessary to assess whether the plea of guilty was attributable to a consciousness of guilt, or whether the real question concerned Ritchie's actual guilt. The court found that Ritchie had not been properly advised and that his plea was not attributable to a consciousness of guilt. Instead, the plea of guilty was a result of the inappropriate advice he had received.

Given the Crown's concession that Ritchie's appeal should be allowed, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. It ordered a new trial for Ritchie. The court's decision was based on the premise that Ritchie had not been properly advised and that allowing him to withdraw his plea of guilty was necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that individuals are properly advised before pleading guilty to serious criminal charges.

Orders