Rotner v R [2011] NSWCCA 207

Rotner v R [2011] NSWCCA 207

Leave was refused because no error was shown in Knox DCJ's application of the principles governing withdrawal of a guilty plea. The applicant had been given sound legal advice about an overwhelmingly strong prosecution case, entered the plea in the exercise of free choice with an accurate appreciation of the charge, and there was no real question about guilt. The asserted lack of recollection did not itself undermine the integrity of the plea. The material concerning Bradley Roland did not seriously call his veracity into question, and the proposed defence of accident had no evidentiary basis and no prospect of success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Judgment or Order Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From a District Court Order Refusing Leave to Withdraw a Plea of Guilty
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'adequacy of Legal Advice' 'wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'strength of Prosecution Case' 'defence of Accident' 'self Defence' 'specific Intent']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'adequacy of Legal Advice' 'wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'strength of Prosecution Case' 'defence of Accident' 'self Defence' 'specific Intent']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Judgment or Order Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From a District Court Order Refusing Leave to Withdraw a Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Knox DCJ erred in applying the principles governing withdrawal of a plea of guilty.' "Whether the applicant's plea of guilty was not really attributable to a genuine consciousness of guilt because of lack of recollection, fear, pressure, or inadequate legal advice." "Whether the applicant should have been permitted to rely on material concerning Bradley Roland's criminal record and related police material to challenge the strength of the prosecution case." 'Whether a possible defence of accident provided a basis to permit withdrawal of the plea.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because no error was shown in Knox DCJ's application of the principles governing withdrawal of a guilty plea. The applicant had been given sound legal advice about an overwhelmingly strong prosecution case, entered the plea in the exercise of free choice with an accurate appreciation of the charge, and there was no real question about guilt. The asserted lack of recollection did not itself undermine the integrity of the plea. The material concerning Bradley Roland did not seriously call his veracity into question, and the proposed defence of accident had no evidentiary basis and no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.']