Bakes v Holt - [2022] ACTMC 24

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Nunn v KS
Citation:	[2023] ACTMC 52
Hearing Date:	7 August 2023
Decision Date:	21 August 2023
Before:	Special Magistrate Christensen
Decision:	See [23].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – committal – whether charges are “related charges” – transfer of charges to Supreme Court – whether the
summary offences arise from substantially the same circumstances from which the first indictable offence has arisen
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 28, 374-5
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 90B Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68CA, 68D
Cases Cited:	Bakes v Holt [2022] ACTMC 24 DJ v R [2017] NSWCCA 319 DPP (NSW) v Sinton [2000] NSWSC 473 Jibran v R [2020] NSWCCA 86 R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 374 R v Klobucar (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 348 R v McMahon (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 299 R v Mehajer (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 151 R v Raymond (No 1) [2014] ACTSC 122
Parties:	A Nunn (Informant) KS (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel
J Melloy (Informant) T Sharman (Defendant)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Tim Sharman Solicitor (Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 4017-4021 of 2022
CC 4025-4028 of 2022 CC 4030-4032 of 2022 CC 12353 of 2022

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CHRISTENSEN

REASONS FOR DECISION:

Introduction

1․	The matter is before the court for a determination as to whether the charges ought to be
committed to the Supreme Court.
2․	The defendant is charged with 13 separate charges with maximum penalties of two years,
five years, and 10 years imprisonment. Pleas of not guilty have been entered in respect to
11 of the charges with no plea entered in respect of the remaining two charges. For the
purposes of progressing this decision, I have inferred that a not guilty plea would be entered
to those charges if the defendant was invited to do so.
3․	Four of the charges are what are known as ‘summary/indictable’ charges. That is, the
offences are punishable by imprisonment for longer than two years. The prosecution may
elect summary disposal pursuant to s 374 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) or the
defendant may consent to the summary jurisdiction pursuant to s 375 of the Crimes Act.
4․	Where it is the prosecution election, that is, in respect to charge CC2022/12353 (a charge
of intentionally and unlawfully choking, suffocating, or strangling another person contrary to
s 28(2) of the Crimes Act) and charge CC2022/4026 (a charge of assault occasioning actual
bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act), the prosecution has not elected summary
disposition. Section 374 provides that the court must then deal with the charge in accordance
with s 375(6)-(16).
5․	In relation to the other summary indictable charges, that is, charges CC2022/4021 and
CC2022/4031, both are a charge of reckless threat to kill another person contrary to s 30 of
the Crimes Act. The Magistrates Court may deal with the matters in accordance with s 375
of the

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 Bakes v Holt

Details

AGLC: Bakes v Holt [2022] ACTMC 24
Case: [2022] ACTMC 24
Decision Date: 21 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bakes v Holt involved the appellant, Bakes, contesting the decision of the Magistrates’ Court to transfer certain charges to the Supreme Court. The dispute centered around whether the charges against Bakes were "related charges" within the meaning of the relevant legislation, specifically section 6 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). If the charges were deemed related, they could be transferred to the Supreme Court for trial. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Magistrates' Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the interpretation of the term "related charges" as it applied to the circumstances of the case. Bakes argued that the charges against him were not sufficiently related to warrant transfer to the Supreme Court. The court had to consider the legislative framework, which aimed to streamline the handling of serious and complex cases, and assess whether the charges in question met the criteria for being considered "related." This required an analysis of the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the potential implications for the administration of justice.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal examined the statutory provisions and case law that defined "related charges." The court held that the charges against Bakes were indeed related, as they arose from a single course of conduct and involved offences that were inherently connected. The decision was based on the understanding that the charges shared a common factual matrix and that transferring them to the Supreme Court was in the interests of justice, given the complexity and seriousness of the alleged offences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Magistrates' Court to transfer the charges was upheld.

The final orders of the court confirmed the transfer of the charges to the Supreme Court, allowing the case to proceed as determined by the Magistrates' Court. This decision underscored the importance of the legislative intent behind the definition of "related charges" and the court's role in ensuring that the administration of justice is served effectively.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [23].

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.