ENRIGHT -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASC 60

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 60
Case No:	MCS:11/2003	Heard:	7 MARCH 2003
Coram:	SCOTT J	Delivered:	26/03/03
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KEVIN JOHN ENRIGHT THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Bail Serious offences alleged whilst applicant on bail for serious offences Exceptional circumstances required Exceptional circumstances not established
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982, Sch 1, Pt C, cl 3A
Case References:	Hoddy v Hawes [2003] WASC 22 Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162 R v Bernt (1994) 70 A Crim R 1 WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : ENRIGHT -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASC 60 CORAM : SCOTT J HEARD : 7 MARCH 2003 DELIVERED : 26 MARCH 2003 FILE NO/S : MCS 11 of 2003 BETWEEN : KEVIN JOHN ENRIGHT

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Bail - Serious offences alleged whilst applicant on bail for serious offences - Exceptional circumstances required - Exceptional circumstances not established

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982, Sch 1, Pt C, cl 3A

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Hoddy v Hawes [2003] WASC 22
Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162
R v Bernt (1994) 70 A Crim R 1
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 SCOTT J: The applicant, Kevin John Enright, has applied for bail in relation to a very large number of charges which he faces. Some of those charges fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Petty Sessions, but others are to be heard in due course by the District Court.

2 The complainant in relation to almost all charges is a former de facto partner of the applicant.

3 The relationship between the applicant and the complainant terminated some time in September 2001 and on 8 October 2001 the applicant was served with a violence restraining order. That order was finalised on 6 March 2002. One of the conditions of the violence restraining order was that the applicant was not to communicate or attempt to communicate with the complainant.

4 On 4 December 2002 the applicant was arrested and charged with one count of aggravated stalking, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, two counts of threats to injure, one count of threatening with intent to hinder, 14 counts of breach of the violence restraining order and one count of common assault.

5 On 5 December 2002 the applicant appeared in the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions and was remanded in custody to Graylands Hospital for psychological assessment.

6 The notes attached to the complaints indicate that the Magistrate who heard the applicant's bail application in the Court of Petty Sessions had before…

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 Enright v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Enright v The Queen [2003] WASC 60
Case: [2003] WASC 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the case of Enright v The Queen [2003] WASC 60 involved an application for bail by the applicant, Kevin John Enright, who was facing a substantial number of serious charges, including aggravated stalking, assault occasioning bodily harm, and multiple breaches of a violence restraining order. The applicant had already been on bail for a previous serious offence when these new charges were laid against him. The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated "exceptional circumstances" as required by clause 3A of Schedule 1, Part C of the Bail Act 1982, to warrant the grant of bail while facing new serious charges while already on bail for another serious offence.

The court considered the severity of the new charges, the applicant's criminal history, the risk to the complainant if bail were granted, and the applicant's arguments for bail, which included financial hardship, family responsibilities, and challenges in securing legal representation. The court also examined a recent psychological report and the applicant's prospects of appearing for trial. Ultimately, the court found that although the applicant had presented various arguments and evidence in support of his application, these did not sufficiently establish the "exceptional circumstances" necessary to overcome the presumption against granting bail in such cases. The court concluded that the protection of the complainant and the integrity of the judicial process were paramount, and the applicant had not met the high threshold required for bail under the circumstances.

The application for bail was dismissed.

Orders