Christie v The Queen - [2002] WASC 256

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: CHRISTIE -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASC 256

CORAM: McLURE J

HEARD: 29 OCTOBER 2002

DELIVERED : 6 NOVEMBER 2002

FILE NO/S: MCS 48 of 2002

BETWEEN: RORY KIRK CHRISTIE
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Bail - Charge of wilful murder - Exceptional circumstances required - Strength of case - Risk of flight and onus - Welfare of child - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982(WA), Pt C Sch 1

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr T F Percy QC
Respondent: Ms A L Forrester

Solicitors:

Applicant: Ian R Farquhar & Co
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Jemielita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362
Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321
R v Clarke II (2001) 118 A Crim R 585
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Dodd v Hoogewerf & Ors [2002] WASCA 15
Lazaro v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Pidgeon J); Library No 930595; 3 November 1993
Russell v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Owen J); Libray No 930741; 23 December 1993
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Lijo & Ors [2002] WASC 154

McLURE J:

Introduction

This is an application for bail. The applicant is charged with the wilful murder of Susan Margaret Christie, his estranged wife.
The applicant was born in Canada in 1969. He has lived in Australia permanently since 1996 following his marriage to his wife. They separated in 1999. There is one child of the marriage, a son born in 1996. The applicant retained custody of the child following the separation.
The applicant is a person of means. His funds are sourced from Canada.
The Crown case is that between the morning of Friday 16 November 2001 and Saturday 17 November 2001 the applicant went to his wife's unit in Jolimont where a physical altercation took place between the applicant and his wife which resulted in his wife being fatally injured. The applicant is said to have then attempted to clean blood from the unit to conceal her death and then removed his wife from the unit and disposed of her body in a yet to be disclosed location. The applicant was arrested on 6 August 2002 and charged with wilful murder.
The plaintiff's application was supported by affidavits sworn by him on 13 August 2002 and 4 September 2002. At the hearing of the application, senior counsel for the applicant provided to the court a psychological evaluation report concerning the applicant's son prepared by a clinical psychologist.
The applicant sought bail on terms and conditions contained in a Minute which provided for an undertaking from the applicant in the amount of $250,000, a cash deposit surety of $100,000 and other conditions aimed at securing the attendance of the applicant at the trial.
The court was informed by counsel for…

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 Christie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Christie v The Queen [2002] WASC 256
Case: [2002] WASC 256
Decision Date: 6 NOVEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Christie v The Queen involved an appeal against a decision to deny bail for the accused, Christie, who was charged with wilful murder. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the appropriate legal principles to apply when deciding bail applications in cases involving serious charges such as murder. The central issue before the court was whether the magistrate had correctly applied the principles of bail law when assessing the risk of flight and the strength of the prosecution's case against Christie.

The court examined the principles established in previous cases, particularly focusing on the balance between the presumption of innocence and the need to protect the community. It was noted that in cases of serious offences, such as murder, the onus shifts to the accused to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that warrant the grant of bail. The court further considered the welfare of any children involved, in this case, the child of the accused. The reasoning of the court involved a detailed analysis of the evidence presented and the magistrate's assessment of the risk of flight and the strength of the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the magistrate had correctly applied the relevant principles and found no error in the decision to deny bail.

The High Court upheld the decision of the lower court, affirming that the magistrate had appropriately balanced the considerations of bail in light of the serious nature of the charge. The court emphasised that the accused must provide compelling reasons to overcome the presumption against bail in such cases. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and uphold the denial of bail for Christie, reflecting the court's view that the magistrate's decision was consistent with the legal principles governing bail applications in cases of serious criminal charges.

Orders