Birch v WA

(2017) 51 WAR 454; [2017] WASCA 19

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Change of plea
4. › Fast-track guilty plea in court of summary jurisdiction
5. › Accused seeks to change plea in superior court
6. › Whether superior court should enter not guilty plea on behalf of accused
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 99(5)(a)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Criminal procedure legislation
3. › Meaning of 'may not have committed the offence charged'
4. › Whether expression confined to matters of law or extends to matters of fact
5. › Whether court assesses adequacy of prosecution allegations or prospects of defence at trial
6. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 99(5)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Procedure
3. › Plea of guilty
4. › Fast-track guilty plea
5. › Common law power to set aside plea of guilty
6. › Whether statutory provision abrogates common law power
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 99(5)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Use of word 'may'
3. › Whether conferring discretionary power or mandatory power
4. › Context indicating mandatory exercise upon satisfaction of conditions
5. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 99(5)
6. › Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 56(1)

Quick Take

Section 99(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) requires a superior court to assess whether the facts alleged by the prosecution unequivocally disclose the commission of the charged offence, not whether the accused has an arguable defence. An accused's exculpatory statements to police do not, without more, require the court to enter a plea of not guilty. The word 'may' in s 99(5) confers a mandatory power, not a discretion. The provision does not abrogate the common law power to set aside a plea of guilty to avoid a miscarriage of justice.