Robert John Feeney v The Queen - [2014] ACTCA 1

ROBERT JOHN FEENEY v THE QUEEN
[2014] ACTCA 1 (10 February 2014)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appeal against refusal of stay and granting of leave to Crown to withdraw acceptance of guilty plea – appeal from discretionary decision – no error shown – appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment, Stay of Proceedings or Order Restraining Proceedings – Pleas – appeal against refusal of stay and granting of leave to Crown to withdraw acceptance of guilty plea – no requirement that plea bargain was entered into by Crown by mistake or error before leave can be given to Crown to withdraw from plea bargain – prejudice claimed by accused – accused given leave to withdraw his plea of guilty – no unfair prejudice shown – appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleas – operation of Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90A – when accused should personally enter plea – effect if plea of guilty only advised to court by counsel – operation of Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 143 – effect of dismissal of charge when no evidence offered by prosecutor.

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 90A, 143

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 394A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 153

House v the King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jago v District Court (New South Wales) (1989) 168 CLR 23
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
R v Beeby (1999) 104 A Crim R 142
R vBWM (1997) 91 A Crim R 260
R v Filimoehala (2003) 138 A Crim R 299
The Queen v Robert John Feeney [2012] ACTSC 153

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 49 of 2012
No. SCC 308 of 2009

Judge: Penfold and North JJ, Nield AJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory

Date: 10 February 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. ACTCA 49 of 2012

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) No. SCC 308 of 2009
)

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:
ROBERT JOHN FEENEY Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Penfold and North JJ, Nield AJ
Date:  10 February 2014
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Order 2 made by Burns J is varied so that instead of “his plea of guilty” it refers to “any plea of guilty previously entered”.

Order 3 made by Burns J is varied so that instead of “the plea of guilty to receiving stolen goods” it refers to “any plea of guilty previously entered to receiving stolen property”.

Except as provided by Orders 1 and 2 above, the appeal is dismissed and the orders made by Burns J are confirmed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. ACTCA 49 of 2012

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) No. SCC 308 of 2009
)

COURT…

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 Robert John Feeney v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Robert John Feeney v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 1
Case: [2014] ACTCA 1
Decision Date: 10 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by Penfold and North JJ and Nield AJ, concerned the refusal of a stay of proceedings and the granting of leave to the Crown to withdraw its acceptance of the appellant's guilty plea. The appellant, Robert John Feeney, sought to appeal against these discretionary decisions.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the lower court erred in refusing to grant a stay of proceedings and in permitting the Crown to withdraw its acceptance of the guilty plea. Specifically, the Court considered whether there was a requirement for the Crown to demonstrate a mistake or error in entering into a plea bargain before being granted leave to withdraw from it, and whether the appellant suffered unfair prejudice as a result of these decisions. The operation of sections 90A and 143 of the *Magistrates Court Act 1930* (ACT) regarding the personal entry of pleas and the effect of a dismissal of a charge when no evidence is offered were also relevant considerations.

The Court reasoned that no error was shown in the discretionary decisions made by the lower court. It was held that there is no prerequisite for the Crown to establish a mistake or error in a plea bargain before seeking leave to withdraw from it. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any unfair prejudice arising from the withdrawal of the Crown's acceptance of his guilty plea. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with minor variations made to the orders of Burns J to clarify that the withdrawal applied to "any plea of guilty previously entered" rather than a specific plea.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order 2 made by Burns J is varied so that instead of “his plea of guilty” it refers to “any plea of guilty previously entered”.

2. Order 3 made by Burns J is varied so that instead of “the plea of guilty to receiving stolen goods” it refers to “any plea of guilty previously entered to receiving stolen property”.

3. Except as provided by Orders 1 and 2 above, the appeal is dismissed and the orders made by Burns J are confirmed.

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.