Citation: R v Hesford [2002] NSWCCA 525
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 18 December 2002
Judges: Mason P, James J, Dunford J
Background
The applicant pleaded guilty in the Griffith District Court to breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 113(1) of the Crimes Act. The offence involved the applicant forcing entry into his former wife's home and physically assaulting her. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, all but one month suspended, on condition he enter a good behaviour bond with several conditions including treatment for his mental illness and a prohibition on approaching within 100 kilometres of Griffith.
The applicant had suffered a cerebral haemorrhage in 1993, which the sentencing judge found had caused ongoing mental disability and fundamentally altered his character. He spent much of his pre-sentence custody in the acute psychiatric ward at Long Bay. At the time of sentencing he was legally represented by both a solicitor and a barrister.
Approximately six months out of time, the applicant sought extensions of time to appeal both his conviction and sentence. He appeared in person before the Court of Criminal Appeal, contending that his guilty plea had been involuntary due to the effects of medications administered by prison psychiatrists, improper pressure from his legal representatives and the sentencing judge, and the general conduct of the proceedings.
Legal Issues
- Whether an extension of time to appeal against conviction should be granted, given the delay of approximately six months
- Whether the applicant's guilty plea was vitiated by the alleged effects of medication administered by Corrections Health Service psychiatrists
- Whether improper pressure was exerted on the applicant by his legal representatives or the sentencing judge to enter a guilty plea
- Whether an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence should be granted
Decision
The Court refused both extensions of time. James J, with whom Mason P and Dunford J agreed, found that no satisfactory explanation had been provided for the six-month delay in bringing the applications. The burden rested on the applicant to explain that delay, and the explanations offered did not discharge it.
On the involuntary plea ground, the Court accepted that the applicant had been administered medication while in custody. However, it found that establishing a causal link between those medications and an incapacity to enter a valid guilty plea required expert evidence, which the applicant had not provided. The applicant's own assertions on this point were insufficient. The Court also noted that the applicant had spent several days at Junee Correctional Centre immediately before the plea, during which he had not had any medication administered.
The Court rejected the allegation that the applicant's lawyers or the sentencing judge had improperly pressured him to plead guilty. Nothing in the transcripts of the proceedings on either 16 or 18 July 2001, nor in the remarks on sentence, supported those contentions. The Court also noted that the Crown had available witnesses, including the treating psychiatrists and the applicant's own legal representatives, who could have been called to address these issues but were not.
On the merits more broadly, the Court observed that the Crown case disclosed in the prosecution brief was overwhelming: multiple neighbours witnessed part of the assault, the physical evidence was compelling, and a doctor's examination corroborated the victim's account. The sentence imposed was characterised as moderate, and the applicant had already served the only unsuspended portion of it.
Orders Made
- Application for extension of time in which to appeal against conviction refused
- Application for extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking to challenge a guilty plea on the basis of medication-induced incapacity must produce expert evidence to establish that the drugs administered caused or could have caused the alleged effect; the defendant's own assertions are not sufficient.
- Where an application to extend time to appeal is made approximately six months out of time, the applicant bears the onus of providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and a failure to discharge that onus supports refusal of the extension.
- Allegations of improper pressure by legal representatives or a sentencing judge to enter a guilty plea must be supported by something in the court record or transcripts; bare assertions without corroborating material will not suffice.
- In dismissing the appeal application, the Court took into account the overwhelming strength of the Crown's evidence, the moderate nature of the sentence, and the fact that the custodial component had already been served.
- Under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, a sentence of imprisonment cannot be suspended where the term exceeds two years, a constraint that directly shaped the sentence structure imposed by the District Court.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 113(1) (breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 12 (suspension of sentences limited to terms of two years or less)
Cases:
- No specific cases are identified in the portions of the judgment provided.