Legal Research
Cases
A1 v R; A2 v R

A1 v R; A2 v R

Case [2016] NSWSC 1288 13 September 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: A1 v R; A2 v R [2016] NSWSC 1288
Hearing dates: 18 August 2016
Date of orders: 13 September 2016
Decision date: 13 September 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Application by A1 dismissed.
Application by A2 dismissed.

Catchwords: BAIL – where first applicant charged with murder and second applicant charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder – show cause offences – Bail Act 2013, s 16B – whether applicants have shown cause why their detention is not justified
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010
Crimes Act 1900
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
Cases Cited: Chau v DPP (1995) 37 NSWLR 639
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration [1992] HCA 64; (1992) 176 CLR 1
Clumpoint v DPP [2005] QCA 43
DPP (Cth) v Germakian [2006] NSWCA 275
DPP (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
M v R [2015] NSWSC 138
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: A1 (Applicant)
A2 (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A1 (Self Represented)
A2 (Self Represented)
D Robinson (Crown)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2016/83132 (A1)2016/129842 (A2)
Publication restriction: The Court orders that the names of the applicants, the deceased and various witnesses likely to give evidence at the trial, and the events the subject of the applications, and any material tending to identify the individuals, be suppressed. Such order is made until the conclusion of the trial of the applicants or further order of the Court, whichever occurs first.

Judgment

This judgment deals with two bail applications, one brought by A1 and the other by A2. Both applicants are charged with offences arising out of the death of an individual in 2011.
The applications were heard together. Many of the submissions were similar, and the Crown case against each is similar. In those circumstances, it is convenient to deliver a single judgment dealing with both applications.

Non-Publication Order

In order to deal appropriately in this judgment with the applicants’ submissions, it will be necessary to consider a number of different aspects of the Crown case. As is inevitable on a bail application, the material to be considered may or may not be admitted into evidence at the trial of the applicants.
In order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and in order to ensure a fair trial of both of the applicants, it is necessary for the Court to make a suppression order pursuant to s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010.
I acknowledge that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice: Court Suppression and Non‑Publication Orders Act, s 6. However, it is always necessary to prevent injustice occurring in the circumstances of particular cases. In interlocutory applications such as these, it is important for the Court to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A1 v R; A2 v R

Details

AGLC: A1 v The Queen; A2 v The Queen [2016] NSWSC 1288
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1288
Decision Date: 13 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, A1 and A2, sought bail in relation to serious criminal charges before the Supreme Court of Queensland. A1 was charged with murder, while A2 was charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder. Both applicants argued that they had shown cause why their detention was not justified, in accordance with section 16B of the Bail Act 2013. The court needed to determine whether the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant their release from custody.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the charges against the applicants, weighing this against the circumstances that each applicant presented in support of their bail application. The gravity of the alleged offences, particularly the charge of murder, was a significant factor in the court’s consideration. The court also examined the applicants' personal circumstances, including their ties to the community, employment history, and any evidence of remorse or cooperation with authorities. The court further assessed the risk of flight and the potential danger to the community if the applicants were released on bail.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the applicants had not shown sufficient cause to warrant their release on bail. The court emphasised the severity of the charges and the potential danger to the community if the applicants were not detained. The court concluded that the applicants' interests in remaining in custody outweighed their interests in being released on bail. Consequently, the applicants' applications for bail were refused.

The final orders of the court were that both A1 and A2 remain in custody pending the resolution of their respective criminal proceedings. The court’s decision reflected the high threshold required to grant bail in cases involving serious offences such as murder and accessory charges.

Orders