Stuart v The The Queen - [2022] NSWCCA 182

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stuart v R [2022] NSWCCA 182
Hearing dates: 12 August 2022
Date of orders: 26 August 2022
Decision date: 26 August 2022
Before: Kirk JA
Button J
Dhanji J
Decision:
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
(2) Quash the applicant’s convictions in respect of sequences 4 and 9.
(3) List those sequences for arraignment in the District Court on 1 September 2022.
(4) Quash the aggregate sentence imposed on the applicant in the District Court on 5 February 2021.
(5) Remit the proceedings to the District Court for the applicant to be re-sentenced in due course on sequences 2, 3, 6 and 7.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Miscarriage of justice — applicant seeking to withdraw guilty pleas accepted by a magistrate at committal hearing — applicant says that he never gave instructions to enter pleas of guilty — charges never read to applicant either in Local Court or when sentenced in District Court

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33B(1)(a) and 93GA(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 55, 59, 70, 72, 74, 75, 94, 95, 97, 102
Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 (NSW), regs 9A and 9B
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 10A, 25D

Cases Cited:
Amagwula v R [2019] NSWCCA 156
Bobbe v R (No 2) [2021] NSWCCA 150
Ke v R [2021] NSWCCA 177
Layt v R [2020] NSWCCA 231
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; [1996] HCA 46
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41
Ming Yuk (Raymond) Wong v Director of Public Prosecutions (2005) 155 A Crim R 37; [2005] NSWSC 129
R v Duffield (1992) 28 NSWLR 638
R v Paauwe [1971] 2 NSWLR 235
R v Thalari (2009) NSWLR 307; [2009] NSWCCA 170
R v Van (2002) 129 A Crim R 229; [2002] NSWCCA 148
Rotner v R [2011] NSWCCA 207
Sagiv v R (1986) 22 A Crim R 73

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Paul John Stuart (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:

B Nield (Applicant)

G Newtown (Respondent)

Solicitors:

Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/56693
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

None

Date of Decision:

05 February 2021

Before:

Bright DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/56693

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant sought the quashing of two convictions entered following pleas of guilty made on his behalf which he says occurred contrary to his instructions.

The applicant had engaged a solicitor to act on his behalf (the former solicitor) with respect to a series of charges arising out of an incident involving an assault of another person and discharge of a firearm. The former solicitor gave evidence before this Court that he received instructions that the applicant would be pleading guilty to the charges at…

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 Stuart v The The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stuart v The The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 182
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 182
Decision Date: 26 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stuart v The Queen, the applicant, Stuart, sought to appeal his convictions and sentences for two counts of armed robbery and one count of false imprisonment. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Stuart contended that he had not been properly informed of the charges against him, either in the Local Court or at the time of his sentencing in the District Court. He also claimed that he never instructed his legal representatives to enter pleas of guilty on his behalf.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Stuart's convictions should stand, given his assertion that he was never properly informed of the charges against him and that he did not direct his legal representatives to enter pleas of guilty on his behalf. The court needed to determine if a miscarriage of justice had occurred, which would warrant the quashing of the convictions and sentences.

The court considered the principles of natural justice and the importance of ensuring that an accused person is fully aware of the charges they face and the consequences of entering a guilty plea. The court found that Stuart's contentions were not substantiated by the evidence, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court held that Stuart had been properly informed of the charges and that his pleas of guilty were knowingly and voluntarily entered. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court did not see fit to grant leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders