Collins v The Queen - [2003] ACTCA 17

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THOMAS JAMES COLLINS [2003] ACTCA 17 (5 June 2003)

CRIMINAL LAW – bail refused – whether leave to appeal required – applicant charged with murder – evidence of bizarre behaviour immediately prior to fatal incident – relevant principles.

Bail Act1992 (ACT), ss 3(1), (5), 8, 19(2), (5), 38, 42, 43, 45(2), (3), 46,Pt 6
Supreme Court Act1933, ss 9(2)(a), 10(2), 11, 13, 37E, 37E(2)(a)(ii), 37E(4)

McEwen v Siely (1972) 21 FLR 131
Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 92 FCR 168

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 12 - 2003
No. SC 47 of 2003

Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin P, Whitlam J
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 5 June 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 12 - 2003
  )          No. SC 47 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: THOMAS JAMES COLLINS
Applicant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P, Whitlam J
Date:  5 June 2003
Place:  Canberra

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 12 - 2003
  )          No. SC 47 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: THOMAS JAMES COLLINS
Applicant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P, Whitlam J
Date:  5 June 2003
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

This matter was argued on 5 June 2003 when the applicant sought to challenge a decision of Connolly J refusing to grant him bail pending the hearing of committal proceedings against him on a charge of murdering his mother, Julia Margaret Collins. Mr Purnell SC, who appeared on his behalf, submitted that the decision to grant bail was effectively a final order from which his client had a right of appeal. However, he conceded that the preponderance of authority supported the view that such a decision was interlocutory in character and, in the alternative, sought leave to maintain the appeal. He also indicated that he would, if necessary, rely upon the power to review a bail decision provided by s 43 of the Bail Act1992 (ACT) (“the Bail Act”) though, in that event, it would have been necessary for him to have sought leave to amend the pleadings and to have the court reconstituted as a Full Court rather than as the Court of Appeal. We rejected the contention that an appeal lay as of right from the decision and refused leave to appeal. We also indicated that any application to amend the pleadings to have the decision reviewed would be pointless. We provided a brief extemporaneous account of our reasons, but indicated that we would provide a more detailed judgment when time permitted.

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 Collins v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Collins v The Queen [2003] ACTCA 17
Case: [2003] ACTCA 17
Decision Date: 5 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Collins appealed to the Supreme Court of Queensland against a District Court judge's refusal to grant him bail. Collins had been charged with murder following an incident in which a person died.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal was required for an application to review a bail refusal in the circumstances of this case. The Court also considered the principles governing the grant or refusal of bail, particularly where the applicant faces a serious charge like murder and there is evidence of unusual behaviour immediately preceding the alleged offence.

The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal was not required in this instance, as the appeal was against a refusal of bail by a judge of the Supreme Court or a court of like jurisdiction. The Court then applied the established principles for assessing bail applications, weighing the seriousness of the charge against the applicant's circumstances and the risk of flight or further offending. The Court noted that while the evidence of bizarre behaviour was relevant to the charge, it did not, in itself, preclude the grant of bail, provided other considerations were satisfied.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order refusing bail, and remitted the matter to the District Court for reconsideration of the bail application.

Orders