Atherton v Western Australia

Case [2005] WASC 15


ATHERTON -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2005] WASC 15



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASC 15
Case No:MCS:7/200517 FEBRUARY 2005
Coram:BLAXELL J22/02/05
7Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application for bail refused
B
PDF Version
Parties:STEVEN JOHN ATHERTON
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure
Bail
Serious offence allegedly committed while on bail for another serious offence
Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply
Whether there are exceptional reasons why the applicant should not be kept in custody
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), Sch 1 Pt C, cl 1, cl 3, cl 3A

Case References:

Nil
Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91
Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1
Mullally v The Queen [2000] WASCA 26
Musarri v The Queen [2000] WASC 268
Oates v The Queen [2003] WASC 180
Outman v The Queen [2000] WASC 303
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321
R v Jemielita (1995) 78 A Crim R 91
R v Robertson [2001] WASC 120
Rechichi v The Queen [1999] WASC 73
Saka v The Queen [2001] WASC 92
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : ATHERTON -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2005] WASC 15 CORAM : BLAXELL J HEARD : 17 FEBRUARY 2005 DELIVERED : 22 FEBRUARY 2005 FILE NO/S : MCS 7 of 2005 BETWEEN : STEVEN JOHN ATHERTON
    Applicant

    AND

    THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Bail - Serious offence allegedly committed while on bail for another serious offence - Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply - Whether there are exceptional reasons why the applicant should not be kept in custody - Turns on own facts




Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), Sch 1 Pt C, cl 1, cl 3, cl 3A




Result:

Application for bail refused



(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:


Counsel:


    Applicant : Mr D Moen
    Respondent : Ms E Benwell


Solicitors:

    Applicant : Mossensons
    Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:



Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91
Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1
Mullally v The Queen [2000] WASCA 26
Musarri v The Queen [2000] WASC 268
Oates v The Queen [2003] WASC 180
Outman v The Queen [2000] WASC 303
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321
R v Jemielita (1995) 78 A Crim R 91
R v Robertson [2001] WASC 120
Rechichi v The Queen [1999] WASC 73
Saka v The Queen [2001] WASC 92
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279


(Page 3)

1 BLAXELL J: This is an application for bail pending the trial of the applicant on a charge of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply to another. At…

Continue reading Atherton v Western Australia

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Atherton v Western Australia [2005] WASC 15
Case
[2005] WASC 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven John Atherton has applied for bail pending his trial on a charge of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply to another. At the time of his arrest, he was already on bail for a number of other alleged offences including possession of amphetamines and ecstasy with intent to sell or supply to another. The application was heard by Blaxell J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether there were exceptional reasons why the applicant should not be kept in custody, and whether the court may properly grant bail having regard to the provisions of the Bail Act 1982 (WA). Blaxell J found that there were no exceptional reasons to grant bail. While the court sympathised with the applicant's mother who was relying on him for care and support, the court found that her circumstances were not exceptional. The court also found that the statement by Vanessa Hardman, who admitted to placing the drugs in the applicant's car, was not credible as it was inconsistent with the prosecution's evidence. As a result, the application for bail was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.