Daniel Mongan applied to the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court to seek leave for an extension of time to appeal against a conviction.
Mongan’s appeal was heard by three judges in the Court of Appeal sitting at Shepparton on Thursday, June 6, with the justices denying the appeal the following day.
Mongan pleaded guilty to charges of false imprisonment, common assault, aggravated burglary and making a threat to kill in the County Court in September 2019.
He was sentenced to four years and six months in prison, with a non-parole period of two years.
If granted the extension of time, Mongan wanted to appeal against the conviction on the grounds of a “miscarriage of justice”.
In September 2019, the County Court sentenced Mongan to prison over an incident in July 2018 when Mongan went to the woman’s home and grabbed her in the backyard.
When she tried to run away, he grabbed her in a headlock, forced her to the ground and held her down.
During the struggle he attempted several times to put duct tape over the woman’s mouth.
He then took the woman into her house and bound her feet and hands together with cable ties.
The court was told, when the woman asked if he was going to kill her, he replied “it depends on what you tell me, but I probably will”.
When Mongan was distracted by people coming to the door, the woman fled the house and ran to a neighbour’s house yelling “let me in, Dan is going to kill me”.
On June 7, Mongan told the Court of Appeal there was a miscarriage of justice in his case due to the lack of relevant disclosure from the prosecution, new material was available, that he did not wish to admit his guilt when pleading guilty and that his plea was made under duress.
He argued there was no camera footage of the woman leaving the scene played in the court.
He said new evidence included attempts by the woman to make false allegations against him, and the absence of his DNA on items connected with the offending.
He also said he had not wanted to plead guilty and only did so in the hope of a more lenient sentence, and the cost of a trial, as well as because his time on remand was “traumatic” and he wanted to avoid prolonged incarceration.
In handing down their judgment, Justices David Beach, Maree Kennedy and Lesley Taylor said a person could enter a guilty plea for pragmatic reasons even though they did not believe they were guilty of the offence.
The judges said Mongan’s assertion that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice was “entirely without merit”.
They also referenced a letter of apology Mongan wrote that was tendered at his County Court plea that said he “deeply and sincerely regretted his actions” and that he understood he “needed to be punished for my actions”.
The judges said they did not accept Mongan’s submission that he only wrote the apology letter because “that’s how things are done”.
In relation to the non-disclosure of evidence and “new evidence” that Mongan alleged, the judges ruled two of the items he said were not disclosed were — including footage of the woman leaving the house — and were referred to in the case in the County Court.
They also said most of the materials pre-dated the offending and were not relevant or “not new”.
The justices also said “there was no prospect that the ground of appeal would be upheld” and that the reasons for the delay in filing the application were “wholly inadequate”.
32°C