Citation: Application of Michael Anthony Gleeson under the Crimes Act 1900 s 474D Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 s 78 [2008] NSWSC 200
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division
Date: 17 January 2008
Judge(s): Price J
Background
The applicant had pleaded guilty in the District Court in 1993 to seven counts of sexual offences against his stepdaughter, committed when she was aged between eight and fourteen years old. Two further counts were not proceeded with. Newton DCJ sentenced the applicant to concurrent terms of imprisonment, with eligibility for release in August 1996.
This was the applicant's fourth attempt to obtain a judicial inquiry into his convictions, following three previous applications under s 474D of the Crimes Act 1900 (since transferred to the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001). Each prior application had been refused. The Court of Criminal Appeal had also previously refused leave to appeal, describing the prosecution case as "extremely strong."
In the present application, the applicant raised a range of arguments across nine letters to the Court. These included renewed challenges to the voluntariness of his police record of interview, a claim that his in-court apology had been misunderstood, an assertion that he had been "bluffed" into pleading guilty, and complaints about alleged failures in the committal proceedings.
Legal Issues
- Whether the applicant had advanced any material capable of constituting "special facts or special circumstances" justifying further action under s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.
- Whether the matter had already been fully dealt with in the original proceedings, on appeal, and through three prior review applications.
- Whether the applicant's specific grounds (the voluntariness of his confession, the accuracy of the sentencing judge's remarks, and the nature of his guilty plea) raised any genuine doubt as to his guilt.
Decision
Price J reviewed the totality of the material submitted by the applicant alongside the records from all prior proceedings, including the District Court transcripts, the committal proceedings, the Court of Criminal Appeal decision, and the three previous s 474D applications. His Honour found that none of the matters advanced caused any unease in allowing the convictions to stand, and that no doubt arose as to the applicant's guilt.
On the confession issue, Price J noted that this ground had been considered and rejected on multiple prior occasions. The Court of Criminal Appeal had previously found ample evidence supporting the charges even if the record of interview were disregarded entirely, and the applicant had made an unambiguous acknowledgment of guilt before the sentencing judge in open court.
The applicant's claim that his courtroom apology had been intended only to cover offences committed in Queensland (and not those in New South Wales) was rejected. Price J found it evident from the sentencing transcript that the apology was made in respect of the offences to which the applicant had pleaded guilty and was then being sentenced. The related assertion that he had been "bluffed" into pleading guilty was similarly rejected, consistent with the earlier analysis of Ireland J in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Price J concluded that the matter had been fully dealt with in the original proceedings, on appeal, and in three separate prior review applications. No special facts or special circumstances existed to justify further action, and the application was refused.
Orders Made
- Application refused.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 78 and s 79 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, a judicial inquiry into a conviction will only be considered where there are "special facts or special circumstances" that justify further action; the absence of such circumstances is a complete basis for refusal.
- Where a matter has already been the subject of appellate review and multiple prior inquiry applications, that history weighs heavily against any further intervention.
- Sufficient evidence existed to sustain the convictions independently of the disputed record of interview, a finding that had been made consistently across all prior proceedings and was reaffirmed here.
- An applicant's in-court acknowledgment of guilt during sentencing is a significant factor in assessing later claims that a guilty plea was not truly voluntary.
- Raising the same or similar grounds across successive applications, without any genuinely new or different material, does not satisfy the threshold of special facts or special circumstances required to enliven the Court's review jurisdiction.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): ss 61D, 61E(1A), 76, 474D, 474E
- Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW): ss 78, 79
- Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (DNA Review Panel) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases:
- Varley v The Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales (1987) 8 NSWLR 30
- Regina v Michael Anthony Gleeson (Court of Criminal Appeal, 21 February 1996, unreported)