Carly Anne Coles v Director of Public Prosecutions

1. [1]

   On 5 September 2020, Ms Carly Anne Coles (“the plaintiff”) was charged in Broken Hill with aggravated break and enter contrary to s 113 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”) and unlawfully possessing property contrary to s 527C(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. She was later charged with larceny contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act.

2. [2]

   On 25 May 2021, the matter came before the Local Court at Broken Hill. On that date, Ms Coles’ solicitor, Mr Steven Keith Wright, sought and was granted leave to withdraw from the matter. Following this, the Magistrate committed the matter to the District Court for trial.

The Amended Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal

1. [3]

   On 28 April 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended summons seeking leave to appeal the decision of the Magistrate in the Local Court at Broken Hill on 25 May 2021.

2. [4]

   As per the Amended Summons, the following relief is claimed:

   1. (1)

      Pursuant to Part 51 B Rule 5(5) Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), an order extending time to file the Summons for Leave to Appeal;

   2. (2)

      Leave to appeal pursuant to s 55(3) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW);

   3. (3)

      Pursuant to s 55(3) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Local Court at Broken Hill committing the plaintiff for trial in the District Court of NSW in the matter of R v Carly Anne Coles 2020/00258591;

   4. (4)

      Pursuant to s 55(3) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), an order remitting the matter of R v Carly Anne Coles 2020/00258591 to the Local Court at Broken Hill for the continuation of committal proceedings;

   5. (5)

      In the alternative to orders 2 to 4 above, an order pursuant to s 69(3) Supreme Court Act 1970 quashing the order of the Local Court committing the plaintiff for trial in the District Court of NSW in the matter of R v Carly Anne Coles 2020/00258591 and remitting the matter to the Local Court at Broken Hill for the continuation of committal proceedings;

   6. (6)

      No order as to costs; and

   7. (7)

      Such further order as this honourable Court thinks just.

3. [5]

   The plaintiff no longer seeks the alternative relief.

Legislative Framework

1. [6]

   Although the error of law is not identified in the Amended Summons, it is accepted that the question is adequately set out in the plaintiff’s written submissions at paragraph 17.

2. [7]

   The error relied upon is the Magistrate’s failure to ascertain whether the plaintiff was pleading guilty or not guilty to the offences before committing the plaintiff for trial in the District Court.

3. [8]

   Section 95(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (“CPA”), provides that:

4. [9]

   The first defendant concedes that the Local Court erred in law by failing to comply with s 95(4) before committing the plaintiff, who was unrepresented, for trial in the District Court.

Procedural History

1. [10]

   After being arrested, the plaintiff was charged with offences including:

2. [11]

   Aggravated Break, Enter with Intent (knowing person is present), contrary to s 113(2) of the Crimes Act; and

3. [12]

   Larceny, contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act.

4. [13]

   The matter was mentioned in the Local Court at Broken Hill several times from 6 September 2020 up until the committal on 25 May 2021. On some occasions, the plaintiff was represented. At other times, she was un-represented.

5. [14]

   A charge certificate was filed on 16 February 2021. On that day, Legal Aid appeared for the plaintiff and told the Magistrate that legal aid had been applied for. On 14 April 2021, the Legal Aid Commission again appeared for the plaintiff and the matter was given a case conference date of 5 May 2021 and adjourned to 25 May 2021. A case conference did not occur, and Legal Aid subsequently withdrew.

6. [15]

   On 25 May 2021, the plaintiff was un-represented. The solicitor appearing for the Director of Public Prosecutions asked the Court to commit the plaintiff for trial and referred her Honour specifically to s 98 of the CPA.

7. [16]

   Pursuant to s 98 of the CPA, if an accused person is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner, the Magistrate must not commit the accused person for trial or sentence unless the Magistrate is satisfied that the accused person has had reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation for, or legal advice about, the committal proceedings.

8. [17]

   That inquiry was made by the Magistrate, and the plaintiff said that she thought she had done everything required of her by the Legal Aid Commission and that they would be representing her. The inquiry under s 98 does not, however, relieve the Magistrate from the mandatory requirement under s 95(4).

9. [18]

   At no stage did her Honour seek to “ascertain” whether or not the plaintiff wished to plead guilty in respect of the proceedings as was required by s 95(4) of the CPA.

10. [19]

    The transcript records that the Magistrate adjourned for a short period to consider the matter and then delivered a judgment with reasons as to why her Honour was satisfied that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation as was required by s 98 of the CPA. Her Honour then committed the plaintiff to the District Court at Broken Hill.

Plaintiff’s Submissions

1. [20]

   The plaintiff submits that the error in committing the matter to trial without ascertaining whether the plaintiff was pleading guilty or not guilty was an error involving a question of law alone. The plaintiff’s submissions address observations made by his Honour Beech-Jones J (as his Honour then was) in Bimson, Roads & Maritime Services v Damorange Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 734 about the meaning of a “question of law alone” which identified that a question of law alone does not include a mixed question of fact and law.

2. [21]

   The plaintiff submits that the error was solely one of law, as the Magistrate simply failed to undertake the inquiry required by s 95(4) of the CPA. It was not that the Magistrate misapprehended a factual issue about how the plaintiff was pleading.

3. [22]

   The plaintiff does not contend that the Magistrate erred in their consideration of s 98 of the CPA but submits that the decision to commit the matter to the District Court was based exclusively on that consideration and failed to consider the plaintiff’s intention to plead guilty or not guilty under s 95(4) of the CPA.

Defendant’s Submissions

1. [23]

   The first defendant concedes that the Local Court erred in law by failing to comply with s 95(4) of the CPA before committing the plaintiff for trial in the District Court.

Consideration

1. [24]

   Leave to appeal is required under s 53(3)(a) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) (“CARA”). In relation to the discretionary decision to grant leave to appeal and an extension of time, the plaintiff made several submissions which can be summarised as:

2. [25]

   I am satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that leave to appeal should be granted.

3. [26]

   Clearly, the Magistrate failed to ascertain whether or not the plaintiff was to plead guilty to the offences that were being proceeded with. This was not a case where the Magistrate misapprehended a factual issue about how the plaintiff was pleading or wrongly applied the law to decide a fact about whether the plaintiff was pleading guilty or not. The Magistrate simply did not undertake the inquiry required under s 95(4) of the CPA. I am satisfied that this was an error that involved a question of law alone within the meaning of s 53(3) of the CARA.

4. [27]

   Before I make the necessary orders, it is important to note that committal for trial to the District Court impacts upon the sentencing discount available to an offender on sentence. The application of the discounts is mandatory and there are no relevant exceptions in this case.

5. [28]

   Under s 25A(2) of the CSPA, a court must not apply any other discount for the utilitarian value of a guilty plea other than the discount provided for by Division 8.

6. [29]

   The failure to undertake the inquiry required under s 95(4) of the CPA potentially deprived the plaintiff of a 25% discount for an early plea of guilty, as the discount available is mandatorily reduced by s 25D(2)(b) of the CSPA once the matter is committed to the District Court for trial.

7. [30]

   The affidavit of Steven Wright, affirmed on 10 June 2022, states (at [32]-[34]) that the plaintiff has instructed him she will plead guilty in the Local Court to two charges and be committed for sentence. The facts have been agreed between the parties for that purpose. Although pleas of guilty could be entered by the plaintiff in the District Court, she would not receive the maximum discount on sentence which applies if pleas of guilty are entered in the Local Court. In that context, the grounds for relief are established.

Orders

1. [31]

   I make the following orders:

   1. (1)

      I grant the plaintiff an extension of time under Part 51B Rule 5(5) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) to file the summons in this matter;

   2. (2)

      I grant the plaintiff leave under s 54(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) to appeal against the order of Magistrate Trad made in the Local Court at Broken Hill on 25 May 2021, which committed the plaintiff to trial;

   3. (3)

      Pursuant to s 55(3)(a) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW):

   4. (4)

      No order as to costs, with the intention each party bear their own costs.