DPP v Bakir

Case [2006] QCA 562


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

DPP v Bakir [2006] QCA 562

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QUEENSLAND)
(appellant)
v
YASSAR BAKIR
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10888 of 2006
SC No 10175 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 December 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard, Keane and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

(1) Appeal dismissed

(2) The stay granted by Chesterman J on 13 December 2006 and enlarged by this Court on 15 December 2006 is discharged

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – EXECUTION AGAINST THE PERSON – QUEENSLAND – BAIL – where Judge of the Supreme Court granted bail to respondent on certain conditions – where another Judge of the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the execution of that order – whether the stay should be extended or discharged – whether the risk that the respondent might interfere with witnesses if he were to be released on bail was an acceptable risk that justified the grant of bail

Bail Act1980 (Qld), s 15(3)

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, cited

R vCain(No 1) (2001) 121 A Crim R 365; [2001] NSWSC 116; SC No 71244 of 2001, 1 March 2001, cited

Scrivener v DPP (2001) 125 A Crim R 279; [2001] QCA 454 Appeal No 9094 of 2001, 23 October 2001, cited

COUNSEL:

D R MacKenzie for the appellant
M J Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Ryan & Bosscher for the respondent

  1. JERRARD JA: This matter is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against orders made in the Trial Division of this Court on 12 December 2006, granting bail to Yassar Bakir on serious charges. Those are:

·attempted murder;

·unlawful possession of a weapon;

·dangerous conduct with a weapon;

·two charges of robbery with actual violence;

·two charges of deprivation of liberty;

·unlawful use of a motor vehicle; and

·common assault.

  1. The bail conditions include that Mr Bakir provide a surety in the amount of $100,000, surrender himself at the Southport Magistrates Court on 26 March 2007 and thereafter for the purpose of a committal hearing which will be held, and likewise that he surrender himself and appear at any criminal sittings of the District or Supreme Court to which he is committed for trial or sentence.  He is required to reside with his brother Abad Kareem Hassan at 5 Baker Street Merrylands, Sydney, New South Wales; to remain in that residence overnight between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am, and report between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm to the officer-in-charge of the Merrylands Police Station on five of the seven days of the week.  He is also to surrender all passports in his possession, not approach any port of international…

Continue reading DPP v Bakir

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DPP v Bakir [2006] QCA 562
Case
[2006] QCA 562
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Bakir involved a dispute regarding the enforcement of a judgment and order, specifically in relation to the execution of bail conditions. The respondent, Bakir, was granted bail by a judge of the Supreme Court, subject to certain conditions. However, another judge of the Supreme Court subsequently issued a temporary stay on the execution of this bail order. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to challenge this stay, arguing that it should be either extended or discharged.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the stay on the execution of the bail order should be extended or discharged, and if the risk that the respondent might interfere with witnesses if he were to be released on bail was an acceptable risk that justified the grant of bail. The court had to consider the balance between the rights of the respondent to be granted bail and the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing potential witness interference.

In its reasoning, the court found that the stay granted by Chesterman J on 13 December 2006, and enlarged by this Court on 15 December 2006, should be discharged. The court held that the risk of witness interference did not justify the continuation of the stay. The court was satisfied that the conditions imposed on the respondent’s bail were sufficient to mitigate any potential risks of witness interference. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the stay was discharged.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal dismissed

(2) The stay granted by Chesterman J on 13 December 2006 and enlarged by this Court on 15 December 2006 is discharged

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.