Woods v R - [2008] NSWCCA 83

Reported Decision: 184 A Crim R 108

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: WOODS v R [2008] NSWCCA 83

HEARING DATE(S): 27 February 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Hulme J at 6; Latham J at 52

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence granted
Appeal dismissed

PARTIES: David George WOODS
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/00003201

COUNSEL: Crown: J Dwyer
Appellant: E Conditsis

SOLICITORS: Crown: S Kavanagh
Appellant: Conditsis & Associates

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/31/0201

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: O'Connor DCJ

- 7 -

2007/00003201

SPIGELMAN CJ
HULME J
LATHAM J

Wednesday, 23 April 2008

David George WOODS v R

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Hulme J in draft. I agree with his Honour and wish to add some brief observations.

2 The authorities contain various formulations of the circumstances in which leave to withdraw a plea of guilty can be given. (See eg R v Hura [2001] NSWCCA 61; (2001) 121 A Crim R 472 at [32]-[33].) For the reasons given by Hulme J none of these formulations are satisfied in this case.

3 The substance of the submission put in this Court was that, upon a further review of documentation since the submissions were made before Marien DCJ, some matters capable of impinging upon the Crown case had been identified. These matters, which generally involved facts that could be deployed for the purpose of cross-examination of the complainant, had not been drawn to Judge Marien’s attention. In my opinion, this is an entirely inappropriate approach to an application of this kind.

4 I indicated during the course of the submissions, as referred to by Hulme J, it is not appropriate to treat proceedings in a criminal court as if they constituted some kind of forensic game. The issue on an application to withdraw a plea focuses upon the genuineness of the confession of guilt. Whether or not an accused thinks the Crown has a strong case goes to the issue of whether he is likely to be convicted. That is not the focus of attention on an application of this character.

5 For the reasons identified by Hulme J the matters relied upon did not impinge upon the genuineness of the confession. Nothing has been shown to affect the integrity of the plea.

6 HULME J: On 12 June 2007, O’Connor DCJ sentenced the Applicant in respect of 2 charges to which he had pleaded guilty. The charges and the sentences imposed were:-

(i) that on 23 April 2004 he indecently assaulted a person who may conveniently be referred to as “AS” in circumstances of aggravation, viz. that she was under age 16, i.e.14 - imprisonment for 21 months including a non-parole period of 9 months both periods commencing on 12 June 2007;

(ii) that between 22 April and 4 May 2004, he intimidated AS with intent to cause her to fear physical…

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 Woods v R

Details

AGLC: Woods v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 83
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 83
Decision Date: 23 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Woods v R, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the circumstances under which a defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty following its entry. The appellant, Woods, had pleaded guilty to a criminal charge but later sought to withdraw that plea on the basis that he did not fully understand the consequences of the plea at the time it was entered. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the plea had been properly entered and that the appellant's later claims of misunderstanding did not warrant withdrawal.

The central legal issue for the Court was whether the appellant's right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under section 80 of the Australian Constitution, was infringed by preventing him from withdrawing his guilty plea. The Court considered whether there were exceptional circumstances that justified allowing the withdrawal of the plea, even after it had been formally entered. The Court also examined the procedural fairness principles that should guide such decisions, including whether the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in denying the application to withdraw the plea.

The Court held that while the right to a fair trial is fundamental, it does not automatically confer a right to withdraw a guilty plea at any time. The Court acknowledged that there may be exceptional circumstances that could warrant such a withdrawal, but these would need to be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Court found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion reasonably in denying the application to withdraw the plea, given the evidence and circumstances presented. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that a guilty plea is made knowingly, voluntarily, and with an understanding of the consequences, but also recognised the need to maintain the integrity and finality of the judicial process.

The Court's decision was that the trial judge's refusal to allow the appellant to withdraw his guilty plea was not an infringement of his constitutional rights. The Court did not order any further action, as the appeal was dismissed.

Orders