R v Justin Michael Konemann [2007] NSWDC 113

R v Justin Michael Konemann [2007] NSWDC 113

The accused was a willing and loyal driver for the principal offender and was aware of the details of the offence, including the use of an offensive weapon and injury to the victim. Plea of guilty inherently admits prior knowledge of essential elements, but given inconsistencies in evidence and plea, the matter is stood over for clarification of the plea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Plea Hearing
Outcome
Adjournment for clarification of plea
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'plea of Guilty' 'duress' 'knowledge of Offensive Weapon']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'plea of Guilty' 'duress' 'knowledge of Offensive Weapon']

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 / Plea Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether accused can maintain plea of guilty given evidence inconsistent with plea' 'Whether accused had knowledge of offensive weapon used in offence' 'Whether duress was present or could mitigate sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was a willing and loyal driver for the principal offender and was aware of the details of the offence, including the use of an offensive weapon and injury to the victim. Plea of guilty inherently admits prior knowledge of essential elements, but given inconsistencies in evidence and plea, the matter is stood over for clarification of the plea.

Court Disposition

Adjournment for clarification of plea

Orders

  • ['Matter stood over to 31 May 2007 at Penrith District Court for clarifying the plea.']