GOLDIE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASC 153

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 153
Case No:	MCS:52/2000	Heard:	16 MAY 2001
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	16/05/01
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail refused
PDF Version

Parties:	BRIAN GERALD JAMES GOLDIE THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Bail Previous application to Supreme Court refused Principles Change in circumstances Previous failure to comply with conditions of bridging visa Applicant absconding interstate Conditions subsequently conceded to have been unlawful Flight risk
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14(2)(a) Schedule 1, Part C, cl 1 and cl 3
Case References:	WCVB v R (1989) 1 WAR 279 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : GOLDIE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASC 153 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 16 MAY 2001 DELIVERED : 16 MAY 2001 FILE NO/S : MCS 52 of 2000 BETWEEN : BRIAN GERALD JAMES GOLDIE

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Bail - Previous application to Supreme Court refused - Principles - Change in circumstances - Previous failure to comply with conditions of bridging visa - Applicant absconding interstate - Conditions subsequently conceded to have been unlawful - Flight risk

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14(2)(a) Schedule 1, Part C, cl 1 and cl 3

Result:

Bail refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr A Palumbo

Respondent : Ms C Barbagallo

Solicitors:

Applicant : A Palumbo

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

WCVB v R (1989) 1 WAR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This is an application for bail made pursuant to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2000, on an application dated 14 May 2001. It is supported by an affidavit of the applicant, sworn 27 April and filed on 14 May 2001. There is also before me from the respondent, as handed up in court, with leave, today, an affidavit of John Gerard Zadkovich dated 16 May 2001.

2 Mr Palumbo, who appears on behalf of the applicant, initially indicated that there were matters in that affidavit to which objection would be taken and that, in any event, he would require the deponent to attend for cross examination. When those matters to which Mr Palumbo wished to refer were however canvassed in the course of the proceedings today, they were, I think, resolved to the extent that it was understood that most of what the deponent said, and which was challenged by Mr Palumbo, was really challenged on the basis that it did not go far enough as to saying what the position of the applicant would or might be if particular circumstances changed.

3 By way of example, in par 10, Constable Zadkovich states that he understands the applicant is the current holder of a criminal justice stay certificate which entitles him to remain in Australia pending the determination of the criminal charges but does…

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 Goldie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Goldie v The Queen [2001] WASC 153
Case: [2001] WASC 153
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goldie v The Queen, the applicant, Brian Gerald James Goldie, sought bail from the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Goldie was facing charges of stealing money while employed by Fluor Daniel Pty Ltd, amounting to approximately $417,000. The primary legal issue was whether Goldie, who had previously been denied bail by Miller J on 14 July 2000, had demonstrated a relevant change in circumstances warranting a reconsideration of his bail application. The court had to determine if the applicant's previous failure to comply with conditions of a bridging visa and his subsequent actions constituted a flight risk or demonstrated a likelihood of attending his trial if granted bail.

Roberts-Smith J examined the facts and submissions presented, including Goldie's history with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, his absconding from visa conditions, and his assumption of a false identity. The court noted that although some conditions of the bridging visa were unlawful, Goldie had chosen not to comply with them. Despite arguments that the change in circumstances warranted a new consideration of the bail application, the court found that Goldie's history of non-compliance and potential for absconding again posed a significant flight risk. The court was also concerned about the lack of ties Goldie had to Western Australia, his vague employment prospects, and the seriousness of the charges against him. Consequently, the court concluded that Goldie had not satisfied the onus of demonstrating that he would attend his trial if released on bail. The application for bail was therefore refused.

Orders