Stuart v R [2022] NSWCCA 182

Stuart v R [2022] NSWCCA 182

The applicant established on the balance of probabilities that he did not instruct his former solicitor to plead guilty to sequences 4 and 9. The pleas were made in circumstances suggesting they were not true admissions of guilt and involved a mistake or other circumstance affecting their integrity. Because the Crown conceded, and the Court accepted, that both disputed charges involved triable issues, a miscarriage of justice was established. The convictions for sequences 4 and 9 and the aggregate sentence imposed with those sequences included could not stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; convictions for sequences 4 and 9 quashed; aggregate sentence quashed; proceedings remitted to the District Court for retrial and resentencing as ordered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'withdrawal of Guilty Pleas' 'committal Proceedings' 'integrity of Plea' 'triable Issue' 'aggregate Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'withdrawal of Guilty Pleas' 'committal Proceedings' 'integrity of Plea' 'triable Issue' 'aggregate Sentence']

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 Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant established a miscarriage of justice in respect of guilty pleas entered on his behalf to sequences 4 and 9.' "Whether there was a sufficient question about the integrity of the applicant's guilty pleas to sequences 4 and 9." 'Whether sequences 4 and 9 involved real or triable issues.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence imposed for sequences including sequences 4 and 9 should be quashed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established on the balance of probabilities that he did not instruct his former solicitor to plead guilty to sequences 4 and 9. The pleas were made in circumstances suggesting they were not true admissions of guilt and involved a mistake or other circumstance affecting their integrity. Because the Crown conceded, and the Court accepted, that both disputed charges involved triable issues, a miscarriage of justice was established. The convictions for sequences 4 and 9 and the aggregate sentence imposed with those sequences included could not stand.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; convictions for sequences 4 and 9 quashed; aggregate sentence quashed; proceedings remitted to the District Court for retrial and resentencing as ordered.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant leave to appeal.' "Quash the applicant's convictions in respect of sequences 4 and 9." 'List those sequences for arraignment in the District Court on 1 September 2022.' 'Quash the aggregate sentence imposed on the applicant in the District Court on 5 February 2021.' 'Remit the proceedings to...