BROAD -v- HAAS [2002] WASC 155

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 155
Case No:	MCS:3/2002	Heard:	14 JUNE 2002
Coram:	WHITE AUJ	Delivered:	17/06/02
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail granted
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	SCOTT WILLIAM BROAD DAVID GEOFFREY HAAS
Catchwords:	Bail Application for bail where applicant arrested for a serious offence while on parole for a previous serious offence Whether exceptional circumstances resulting from a combination of the length of the likely delay before the applicant is brought to trial at some date in 2003; the ill-health of the applicant's de facto spouse; the offer of emplopyment made to the applicant and the unlikelihood of the applicant failing to appear when called upon to do so
Legislation:	Bail Act, cl 3A, Pt C, Sch 1
Case References:	Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199 Saka v The Queen [2001] WASC 92 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : BROAD -v- HAAS [2002] WASC 155 CORAM : WHITE AUJ HEARD : 14 JUNE 2002 DELIVERED : 17 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : MCS 3 of 2002 BETWEEN : SCOTT WILLIAM BROAD

Applicant

AND

DAVID GEOFFREY HAAS

Respondent

Catchwords:

Bail - Application for bail where applicant arrested for a serious offence while on parole for a previous serious offence - Whether exceptional circumstances resulting from a combination of the length of the likely delay before the applicant is brought to trial at some date in 2003; the ill-health of the applicant's de facto spouse; the offer of employment made to the applicant and the unlikelihood of the applicant failing to appear when called upon to do so

Legislation:

Bail Act, cl 3A, Pt C, Sch 1

Result:

Bail granted

(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr J J Scudds

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant : J J Scudds & Associates

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199
Saka v The Queen [2001] WASC 92

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 WHITE AUJ: This is an application for release of the applicant on bail pending his trial on charges of possessing a prohibited drug, namely 6.93 grms of amphetamine with intent to sell or supply, contrary to s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and of possession of a prohibited drug, namely cannabis.

2 At the time of his arrest on 1 April 2002, the applicant was on parole following his conviction and imprisonment for an offence of possession of amphetamine with intent to sell or supply.

3 The offence of possession of amphetamine with intent to sell or supply with which the applicant has been charged is a serious offence.

4 Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of cl 3A of Pt C of Sch 1 of the Bail Act

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 Broad v Haas

Details

AGLC: Broad v Haas [2002] WASC 155
Case: [2002] WASC 155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott William Broad applied for bail pending his trial for drug offences, while on parole for a previous drug offence. David Geoffrey Haas, the respondent, opposed the application. The Supreme Court of Western Australia heard the application and considered whether exceptional circumstances existed to grant bail. The court considered the length of the likely delay before the applicant was brought to trial, the ill-health of the applicant's de facto spouse, the offer of employment made to the applicant, and the unlikelihood of the applicant failing to appear when called upon to do so. The court found that the combination of these factors constituted exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail to the applicant on specified conditions.

Orders