Smith v Hazlitt - [2011] WASC 154

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: SMITH -v- HAZLITT [2011] WASC 154

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 25 MAY 2011

DELIVERED : 25 MAY 2011

FILE NO/S: SJA 1025 of 2011

BETWEEN: MATTHEW JOHN SMITH
Appellant
AND
SAMUEL LIAM HAZLITT
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :CHIEF MAGISTRATE S A HEATH
File No  :PE 16414 of 2008, PE 16415 of 2008, PE 16416 of 2008

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Plea of guilty entered on a mistaken basis - Miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8(1)(b), s 8(2)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a), s 32A

Result:

Extension of time to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Convictions set aside
Verdicts of acquittal substituted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms K J Farley
Respondent: Ms S H Linton

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254
Hogue v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 102
Liberti (1991) 44 A Crim R 120
Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132

HALL J: This is an appeal against convictions for drug offences that were recorded in the Magistrates Court on 27 August 2008. The appeal notice was filed on 8 March this year, which is 18 months out of time, thus an extension is sought. The reasons for that delay relate to the merits of this appeal and they will become apparent shortly.
The background is that on 1 July 2008 the appellant appeared in the Perth Magistrates Court and entered pleas of guilty to, amongst other things, three counts of possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply contrary to s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA). Those three counts related to prosecution notices PE 16414, PE 16415 and PE 16416 of 2008, with the date of the alleged offences being 21 February 2008.
Following the pleas being entered, the sentencing proceedings were adjourned to 27 August 2008 to allow for a pre‑sentence report to be prepared. On that day the matter came before the Chief Magistrate and following confirmation that pleas of guilty had already been entered, the relevant facts were read by the police prosecutor to the court.
Those facts included an allegation that bags of drugs had been seized from the appellant which preliminary tests indicated contained quantities of 3.67, 2.56 and 3.18 grams respectively of amphetamines. The appellant was then sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment in relation to each count to be served concurrently. A parole eligibility order was then made.
Some time later the appellant was convicted of some further drug offences in the District Court and appeared in that court on 11 November last year for sentencing. In those proceedings counsel from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions represented the prosecution and expressed 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 Smith v Hazlitt

Details

AGLC: Smith v Hazlitt [2011] WASC 154
Case: [2011] WASC 154
Decision Date: 25 MAY 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Smith v Hazlitt, the appellant, Smith, sought to appeal against his conviction for the crime of armed robbery. Smith had entered a plea of guilty to the charge, but contended that the plea was made on a mistaken basis due to misinformation provided by his legal representative, Hazlitt. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions of lower courts in criminal matters.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's plea of guilty could be set aside on the basis that it was entered on a mistaken basis due to misinformation provided by his legal representative. The court had to consider the circumstances in which a plea of guilty could be set aside, the standard of proof required to establish a miscarriage of justice, and the extent to which legal representation can be held responsible for errors in advice provided to a client. The court also had to consider the impact of the appellant's guilty plea on the proceedings, and whether the interests of justice required the appeal to be allowed.

The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was indeed entered on a mistaken basis, as he had been misinformed by his legal representative regarding the potential sentence he would receive if convicted. The court held that the standard of proof required to establish a miscarriage of justice was not as high as that required for a conviction, and that legal representatives could be held responsible for errors in advice provided to their clients. The court also found that the interests of justice required the appeal to be allowed, and that the appellant's guilty plea did not preclude the court from setting it aside. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction of the appellant be quashed, and that the matter be remitted to the lower court for further proceedings. The court also ordered that the appellant be released from custody, pending any further proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of accurate legal advice in criminal proceedings, and the need for legal representatives to take responsibility for their advice. The decision in this case is likely to have significant implications for criminal defendants who have entered pleas of guilty on the basis of misinformation provided by their legal representatives.

Orders