Webster v The Queen [No 2] - [2013] WASC 73

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: WEBSTER -v- THE QUEEN [No 2] [2013] WASC 73

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 21 FEBRUARY 2013

DELIVERED : 21 FEBRUARY 2013

FILE NO/S: INS 26 of 2012

BETWEEN: JAMES WEBSTER
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Application to withdraw plea of guilty - Principles applicable - Whether grounds for changing a plea made out

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Ms S J Oliver

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254
Corica v Throssell [2012] WASC 393
Glover v Reyne [2001] WASCA 305; (2001) 124 A Crim R 496
Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132
Pilkington v The Queen [1955] Tas SR 144
Ridgeway v The Queen [1995] HCA 66; (1995) 184 CLR 19
Tihanyi v The Queen [1999] WASCA 226; (1999) 21 WAR 377
Wright v McMurchy [2012] WASCA 257

HALL J:
(These reasons were delivered orally and have been edited from the transcript)

Introduction

This is an application by Mr Webster, who I will here after refer to as 'the applicant', to be permitted to change his pleas of guilty to not guilty. The background to the application is as follows.

Background

On 31 November 2011, the applicant was arrested and charged with offences under the Criminal Code (Cth). An indictment was filed in this court dated 2 April 2012. The charges contained in that indictment were:
Between 16 December 2010 and the 1 August 2011 at Perth and elsewhere in Western Australia [the applicant] attempted to commit an offence against section 302.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) in that [the applicant] attempted to traffic in a substance, the substance being a controlled drug, namely Methamphetamine, and the quantity being a commercial quantity contrary to section 11.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
AND FURTHER THAT On the 31 July 2011 at South Perth and elsewhere in Western Australia [the applicant] dealt with money or property where there was a risk that the money or property would become an instrument of crime and [the applicant] was reckless as to the fact that there was a risk that the money or property would become an instrument of crime in relation to an offence that is a Commonwealth indictable offence and at the time of the dealing the value of the money or property was $A100,000 or more contrary to section 400.4(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
On the 29th day of July 2011 at Cottesloe in Western Australia [the applicant] possessed a substance, the substance being a controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to section 308.1 subsection (1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
On 21 September 2012, the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges. There were two other co-accused who also pleaded not guilty. The matter was then…

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 Webster v The Queen [No 2]

Details

AGLC: WEBSTER vs THE QUEEN [2013] WASC 73
Case: [2013] WASC 73
Decision Date: 21/02/13

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Webster v The Queen [No 2] involved the defendant, Webster, who sought to withdraw his plea of guilty to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine the appropriate principles to apply when considering an application to withdraw a guilty plea and whether the grounds for changing the plea had been made out. The primary focus of the court was on the discretionary nature of the decision to allow a plea to be withdrawn and the relevant factors that should be considered in making that decision.

The legal issues before the court involved the balance between the defendant's right to control their own defence and the need to maintain the efficiency and finality of the criminal justice system. The court needed to clarify the principles that should guide a trial judge in deciding whether to permit a plea to be withdrawn. This involved considering the timing of the application, the reasons provided by the defendant for wanting to withdraw the plea, and the potential impact of allowing the withdrawal on the administration of justice.

The court held that the decision to allow a plea to be withdrawn was inherently discretionary and should be exercised with caution. The court emphasised that the trial judge should consider several factors, including the stage of the proceedings, the reasons for the delay in making the application, the likelihood of success if the case were to proceed to trial, and the potential prejudice to the prosecution if the plea were to be withdrawn. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied these principles and had not erred in refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. The court concluded that the application did not meet the necessary threshold for permitting a withdrawal of the guilty plea.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court. The court's decision reinforced the importance of maintaining the finality and efficiency of criminal proceedings and the need for trial judges to carefully consider all relevant factors when deciding whether to permit a plea to be withdrawn. The outcome of the case provides clear guidance for practitioners on the principles to be applied in similar future cases.

Orders