21 Sept 2020
The Court upheld the District Court: the appellant received timely and appropriate advice, had a support person, provided signed instructions and made informed decisions to seek and accept a sentence indication; there were no exceptional circumstances or legal errors sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice warranting withdrawal of guilty pleas.
9 May 2019
The appellant failed to establish any exceptional circumstances or tenable defence that would justify vacating guilty pleas: he was represented when pleading guilty, produced no evidence of duress or material mistake, advanced legally untenable sovereignty/jurisdiction arguments, and faced strong prosecution evidence; therefore no miscarriage of justice would occur and the District Court judge did not err in declining to vacate the pleas, so leave to appeal is refused and the appeal dismissed.
19 Dec 2017
The application to vacate guilty pleas is dismissed because the defendant entered his pleas knowingly and voluntarily after informed advice, expressly admitted culpability to counsel, and the proffered alibi and supporting affidavits were not credible or persuasive; therefore no miscarriage of justice would result from requiring the defendant to maintain his guilty pleas.
1 Jun 2017
Applying s 24 Sentencing Act 2002, the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt the disputed aggravating facts that Harding was the director/apex of the methamphetamine manufacturing/distribution operation and that at least 6.5 kilograms of methamphetamine were produced over six phases; the defendant's application to vacate pleas was dismissed and the court adopted conservative quantity findings for sentencing.
26 Apr 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not meet s13: counsel's conduct did not provide a basis to vacate the guilty pleas, the additional veterinary evidence was not fresh or compelling (the vet had been involved in the destruction decision), and the factual determination that destruction was necessary was not properly re-opened by this Court.
12 Aug 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because the lower courts had closely examined the circumstances, applied orthodox principles, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice or a tenable defence warranting a further hearing by this Court.