Wingfield v Police No. Scgrg-00-538

[2000] SASC 242

WINGFIELD v POLICE
[2000] SASC 242

Magistrates Appeal

1................ LANDER J. (ex tempore) The appellant was charged on information in that she entered a non-residential building as a trespasser with the intention of committing an offence to which s 169 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 applies; namely, an offence of interference with damage to, or destruction of, property involving $25000 or less.

1. When the matter came before the Magistrates Court, she was represented by a solicitor and she pleaded guilty to the charge. The Magistrate convicted her and sentenced her to imprisonment for four months. He suspended the sentence upon the appellant entering into a bond in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for a period of one year and subject to further conditions relating to community service.

2. Originally, the appellant filed a notice of appeal claiming only that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. After the matter was listed for hearing, the appellant applied to amend her notice of appeal so as to delete the ground of appeal relating to sentence and substitute a ground of appeal against conviction.

3. When the matter came on before me this morning, I allowed the appellant’s application to amend her notice of appeal and the appeal thereafter proceeded as one against conviction only.

4. The appellant’s plea of guilty, of course, was an admission to all of the essential elements of the charge: Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132. The conviction which followed was entered upon the confession formally offered in the court by reason of the plea: R v Massey (1994) 62 SASR 481.

5. A party may appeal against a conviction which has been entered on the party’s own plea of guilty if it appears that the party, when entering the plea, did not appreciate the nature of the charge and did not intend to admit that he or she was guilty of it, or that upon the admitted facts could not be guilty of the offence, or if the refusal to allow an appeal would give rise to a miscarriage of justice: Meissner v The Queen (supra).

6. In this case, the appellant has submitted that she would succeed on appeal upon a number of grounds. First, she did not appreciate the nature of the charge. Secondly, upon the admitted facts she could not be guilty of the offence, and thirdly, if the appeal was not allowed, it would give rise to a miscarriage of justice.

7. Ms Barnett, who appeared for the respondent, has conceded that upon the admitted facts as recounted to the Magistrate and, indeed, upon the admitted facts known to the prosecuting authorities, one essential element of the offence could not be made out. There was no evidence, she said, of an intention to interfere with, cause damage or destruction to the property involving $25000 or less. In those circumstances, she has conceded it would be appropriate to allow the appeal and to dismiss the charge against the appellant.

8. The orders of the court will be:

   (1)    Appeal allowed.

   (2)    The charge on the information of 29 March 2000 is dismissed.