Legal Research
Cases
Van Reesema v Flavel

Van Reesema v Flavel

Case [1992] HCATrans 144 8 May 1992

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

~ ~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No A7 of 1992
B e t w e e n -
ERNST VAN REESEMA

Applicant

and
KEVIN GEORGE FLAVEL

Respondent

Application for special
leave to appeal

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J

McHUGH J

Van Reesema

8/5/92

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 8 MAY 1992, AT 10.25 AM

MR D.M.J. BENNETT, OC:

May it please the Court, I appear

for the applicant with my learned friend,
MRS M.E. SHAW. (instructed by Mellor Olsson)

MR M. ROZENES, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear with

my learned friend, MR s. VORREITER, for the

respondent. (instructed by the Director of Public
Prosecutions (Commonwealth))

MASON CJ:	Mr Bennett.
MR BENNETT:	Your Honours, we have an outline of submissions

and some documents attached to it which I may refer

to briefly. The size ought not to deter
Your Honours, I will be referring to very little of
it.

MASON CJ: Thank you.

This volume is larger than the

application book.

MR BENNETT:

Yes, I apologize for that, Your Honour.

The

submissions are the first five pages, Your Honours.

MASON CJ:

Mr Bennett, the reference in paragraph 1 of your

outline to the uncontested evidence of the
applicant, was that evidence given in relation to
penalty or was it given in relation to the offence
itself?

MR BENNETT:

In relation to penalty, Your Honour, after the

incident concerning the disputed plea of not
guilty.

MASON CJ:	And after conviction?
MR BENNETT:	Yes, Your Honour. Mr Justice O'Loughlin dealt

with the issue of the plea of guilty on the basis
that he did not have to deal with it because he
simply looked at the facts, including the evidence,

and formed a view of whether that demonstrated
guilt or not. That approach having been taken, the question of the plea of guilty did not arise before
him.
The Full Court regarded that as a matter into

which it would not go. We do not suggest any
special leave point arises out of the plea of
guilty, but the existence of the evidence and the
existence of the way it was dealt with in the
courts below enables the case to be conveniently
decided on the issue as to whether the facts gave
rise to the necessary elements.

BRENNAN J:

When a plea of guilty is entered and accepted,

what is the justification for setting it aside?

Van Reesema	8/5/92
MR BENNETT:	Your Honour, the evidence of the applicant is

that he did not intend to plead guilty; that he
started a statement beginning with the words, "I

plead guilty to not keeping a cash book". He was
then interrupted and told, "Well, I treat that as a
plea of guilty" .

BRENNAN J:

But that view was rejected by the Full Court as

a matter of fact.

MR BENNETT:

Your Honour, the Full Court took the view that

it would be inappropriate -…

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 Van Reesema v Flavel

Details

AGLC: Van Reesema v Flavel [1992] HCATrans 144
Case: [1992] HCATrans 144
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Van Reesema, sought to challenge a decision of the Full Court. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had been properly convicted of an offence, with a central issue being the applicant's plea of guilty and the evidence presented in relation to his mental state (mens rea).

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Full Court had erred in its approach to the applicant's plea of guilty, and more broadly, whether the facts before the courts below established the necessary elements of the offence, particularly the requirement of mens rea. The applicant contended that even if the plea of guilty was accepted, the evidence, when properly considered, did not demonstrate guilt.

The applicant argued that his plea of guilty was not unequivocal and that he had been interrupted during his statement. While the Full Court had rejected the applicant's version of events regarding the plea, the High Court was invited to consider whether the evidence, independent of the plea, supported a finding of guilt. The applicant's primary submission was that the evidence did not demonstrate the requisite mens rea, and that the courts below had erred in their assessment of this element. The Chief Justice's reasoning regarding mens rea was highlighted, with the applicant contending that there was ample evidence of knowledge on the part of the appellant.

Orders