R v White [2022] NSWSC 11

R v White [2022] NSWSC 11

Leave to withdraw the plea was refused because the applicant did not establish that allowing the plea of guilty to stand would constitute a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the plea was intentionally and emphatically entered, not by mistake, with full knowledge of the charge, the Crown case and the available defence; the applicant was fit to be tried and capable of entering a plea despite cognitive impairment and anxiety; his presentation in court did not indicate that he was overborne or confused; he had considered changing his plea before and did not enter it on the spur of the moment; and the matters relied on did not impugn the integrity of the plea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on Indictment for Murder / Application by Notice of Motion to Vacate a Plea of Guilty Entered on Arraignment Before Trial
Outcome
Application refused; Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'cognitive Impairment' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'finality of Proceedings']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'cognitive Impairment' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'finality of Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings on Indictment for Murder / Application by Notice of Motion to Vacate a Plea of Guilty Entered on Arraignment Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to withdraw or vacate the plea of guilty to murder entered on 10 January 2022.' "Whether the circumstances in which the plea was entered, including the applicant's cognitive impairment, anxiety, previous assertions of innocence and failure to notify his lawyers, cast doubt on the integrity of the plea so that allowing it to stand would constitute a miscarriage of justice."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to withdraw the plea was refused because the applicant did not establish that allowing the plea of guilty to stand would constitute a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the plea was intentionally and emphatically entered, not by mistake, with full knowledge of the charge, the Crown case and the available defence; the applicant was fit to be tried and capable of entering a plea despite cognitive impairment and anxiety; his presentation in court did not indicate that he was overborne or confused; he had considered changing his plea before and did not enter it on the spur of the moment; and the matters relied on did not impugn the integrity of the plea.

Court Disposition

Application refused; Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application to vacate the plea of guilty to the charge of murder, entered on 10 January 2022, is refused.' 'The Notice of Motion filed on 11 January 2022 is dismissed.']