Special leave report: R v Getachew

As Jeremy Gans mentioned in the comments to the previous post, the High Court has granted special leave to appeal Getachew v R. The transcript is available here. It is fascinating reading, starting with this exchange immediately after counsel make their appearances:

HEYDON J: Mr Boyce, I think it might be convenient if we hear from you first.
MR BOYCE: Thank you. Your Honours, it is submitted in this case that special leave should be refused because the applicant’s grounds have no point of principle worthy of a grant of special leave.
HEYDON J: I agree with that, but it does seem an extraordinary judgment by the Court of Appeal.

Chris Boyce did his best to defend the decision, stating that it was a natural extension of the principle from R v Worsnop and consistent with authority in Victoria, but Heydon and Bell JJ weren't convinced. Bell J also made some remarks that could cast doubt on the reasoning that underlie Worsnop, as she questioned whether an odd-on belief that a person is awake and hence consenting could rebut a mens rea of "aware that the person is not consenting or might not be consenting" (emphasis added). She did, however, qualify her remarks and indicated that they were not concerned with the correctness of Worsnop. Ultimately, the High Court granted special leave for the DPP to appeal the decision, without calling on the DPP to make any submissions.

It looks like the Crown will be running two grounds on the appeal. The first concerned the need for s37AA and s37AAA directions at all in the circumstances, when the accused's defence is that he wasn't there, and hence consent or awareness of consent were not real issues. This invites the court to further explain Pemble and the opening words to s37AAA on when the direction is necessary. The second argument is that the judge's original direction was entirely correct. I've written about my views on the second point previously, here.

In the circumstances, I'd think that the Court of Appeal would need to hold any further appeals that raise this issue in reserve until the High Court hands down its judgment, as otherwise there could be a long string of cases ordering retrials in circumstances where the High Court later decides that the reasoning underlying the decisions is erroneous. More difficult is to know what happens to Roberts and Neal, since they relate to the same point, but weren't the subject of the special leave application. The retrial in Neal can probably stand on its own feet, but Roberts is far more similar to Getachew and, if Getachew is overturned, that should logically take the retrial order in Roberts with it. Maybe the Crown will seek the join the matters later in some way?

Special leave update - September 2011

Before wading through the 273 pages of Momcilovic, it's worth having a brief look at the latest additions to the High Court's workload. Back on the 2nd of September, the High Court granted special leave in four criminal cases - 3 from Victoria and 1 from New South Wales.

Special leave watch: R v Guariglia

I've previously blogged about R v Guariglia [2010] VSCA 343, critical of the majority's decision to allow the appeal and its reasoning. It seems that the DPP was also unhappy with the decision, as the Crown recently sought special leave to appeal the decision (transcript here). Regretably, the High Court knocked back the application, holding that it was not a suitable vehicle and there were insufficient prospects of success.

On reading the transcript, there don't appear to be many indications of what the High Court thinks about the general issues in the case. The questions that were asked involved:

• an indication of scepticism about any practice of the judge referring to the strength of Crown case;
• a recognition that the issue relates to the free choice of plea;
• an inquiry whether this was a test case;
• an inquiry about the current status of the accused and whether he was serving time on other matters.

I must say that the DPP's argument that this was all about case management in criminal trials is a bit of a reach. I suspect that it was necessary to formulate the case that way in order to meet the general importance requirement for special leave. It did, however, invite the view that the trial judge's purpose was to pressure the accused to plead guilty, so as to get rid of the proceeding. And that view of the trial judge's actions plays into the position taken by the majority from the Court of Appeal that judicial statements about discounts on a guilty plea and the strength of the Crown case deprive a person of a free choice of plea.

Encouraging guilty pleas certainly is a way to economically resolve the business of the court and, to that extent, could be part of good case management. But where do you draw the line between proper case management and improper pressure to forfeit the right to put the prosecution to its proof? The difficulties I see with Guariglia are not the sort of "big picture" issues that would attract special leave. Instead, they relate to the court's presumption that the plea was involuntary despite the evidence that the accused was represented by competent counsel and was well able to protect his interests (as shown in his insistence that the Crown drop forfeiture proceedings against his car in exchange for the plea of guilty).

The long term effect of Guariglia are hard to predict. If the County Court adopts a cautious approach to the issues raised by the case, then judicial statements about the guilty plea discount will disappear from case management hearings, along with any preliminary thoughts about the strength of the Crown case. An intermediate step would be to continue to refer to guilty plea discounts, but omit any statements about the Crown case. In each case, the combined effect of the Court of Appeal's decision and the refusal of special leave will likely leave County Court judges more cautious about making any statements that might sway the accused's decisions regarding the plea.