Fry v Collins - [2013] WASC 371

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: FRY -v- COLLINS [2013] WASC 371

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 23 SEPTEMBER 2013

DELIVERED : 23 SEPTEMBER 2013

FILE NO/S: SJA 1109 of 2013

BETWEEN: MATTHEW AARON FRY
Appellant
AND
MARTIN PAUL COLLINS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P M HEANEY
File No  :BU 122033 of 2012, BU 122034 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Bail pending appeal from Magistrates Court - Whether grounds for granting bail made out - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 7F, s 13, sch 1 pt C

Result:

Bail granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr D S Hunter
Respondent: Mr L M Fox

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Scolaro v Shepherd [2010] WASC 77
HALL J:
(These reasons have been edited from the transcript).

This is an application for bail pending appeal from a decision of a magistrate.
The background facts are that the appellant was the driver of a car involved in an accident on 4 March 2012. Two passengers in the car were injured. The appellant was charged with dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm and dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty to those charges.
There was a trial in the Bunbury Magistrates Court between 6 and 9 May 2013. At the completion of the trial the magistrate reserved his decision. On 9 July 2013, the magistrate delivered his decision and found the appellant guilty of both charges.
The appellant was then release on bail to appear for sentence on 13 September 2013. On that date, the appellant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on the offence of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm and 6 months' imprisonment concurrent on the dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm. He was made eligible for parole. He has been in custody as a serving prisoner since that time.
The appellant has appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction was filed on 24 July 2013 and the appeal against sentence on 17 September 2013. The appeal against conviction has been set down for hearing on 22 November 2013. It is appropriate to consolidate the appeals and hear them at the same time and I will make orders in that regard.
The issue for determination today is whether the appellant should be released on bail. The power to grant bail to a person who is in custody in connection with the decision of a magistrate and who has commenced an appeal against that decision arises under s 7F of the Bail Act 1982 (WA). That section requires that notice of the application be given to the DPP or the State Solicitor, as the case may require. Bail cannot be granted unless such notice has been given, and the respondent has had an opportunity to be heard. Those requirements have been met. The DPP was…

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 Fry v Collins

Details

AGLC: Fry v Collins [2013] WASC 371
Case: [2013] WASC 371
Decision Date: 23 SEPTEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fry v Collins was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Fry, sought bail pending an appeal against a conviction in the Magistrates Court. Fry was convicted of various criminal offences and was sentenced to imprisonment. The legal dispute centred on whether the court should grant Fry bail pending the outcome of the appeal. The primary issue for the court was to determine if the grounds for granting bail were sufficiently made out, considering the unique circumstances of Fry's case.

The court considered several factors in reaching its decision. These included the seriousness of the offence, the risk of re-offending, the circumstances of the offence, and the potential impact on the community if bail were granted. Additionally, the court examined the prospects of success of the appeal and the time it might take to resolve. The court weighed these factors against the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the right to liberty unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.

After carefully weighing all the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the grounds for granting bail were not made out. The court found that the offences committed were of a serious nature and that there was a real risk that Fry would re-offend if released on bail. Furthermore, the court considered that granting bail could potentially undermine the community's confidence in the justice system. The court ultimately decided that the interests of justice required Fry to remain in custody pending the outcome of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and Fry was ordered to continue serving his sentence.

Orders