HART -v- R [1999] WASC 59

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASC 59
Case No:	MCR:30/1999	Heard:	4 JUNE 1999
Coram:	WHITE J	Delivered:	4/06/99
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application refused
PDF Version

Parties:	BEVAN JABEZ HART THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Bail Application Serious offence Applicant with a deplorable criminal record including five convictions for breach of bail, one count of breach of bond and one count of "failing to appear" Crown opposing bail Real danger of re-offending Application refused
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982, s 14, cl 1 of Pt C Criminal Code 1913, s 297
Case References:	Garces v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930386; 30 June 1993 Everett v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 9010; 24 July 1991 Gray v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970243; 8 May 1997 Jemelita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362 KM v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7193; 14 July 1988 Teece v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930013; 6 January 1993

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : HART -v- R [1999] WASC 59 CORAM : WHITE J HEARD : 4 JUNE 1999 DELIVERED : 4 JUNE 1999 FILE NO/S : MCR 30 of 1999 BETWEEN : BEVAN JABEZ HART

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Bail - Application - Serious offence - Applicant with a deplorable criminal record including five convictions for breach of bail, one count of breach of bond and one count of "failing to appear" - Crown opposing bail - Real danger of re-offending - Application refused

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982, s 14, cl 1 of Pt C

Criminal Code 1913, s 297

Result:

Application refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms R M Parks

Respondent : Ms S M Melvold

Solicitors:

Applicant : Edward John Myers

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Garces v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930386; 30 June 1993

Case(s) also cited:

Everett v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 9010; 24 July 1991
Gray v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970243; 8 May 1997
Jemelita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362
KM v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7193; 14 July 1988
Teece v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930013; 6 January 1993

(Page 3)

1 WHITE J: This is an application for the grant of bail. Clause 1 of Pt C of the Bail Act requires that in exercising my discretion whether to grant bail I am to have regard to the following questions as well as any other which I may consider relevant. The questions are:

"(a) whether, if the accused is not kept in custody, he may -

(i) fail to appear in court in accordance with his bail undertaking;

(ii) commit an offence;

(iii) endanger the safety, welfare or property of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hart v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] WASC 59
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bevan Jabez Hart applied to the Supreme Court of Western Australia for bail in relation to charges of grievous bodily harm under the Criminal Code 1913. The Crown opposed the application on the grounds of a real danger of reoffending and potential witness interference. The court was required to consider the criteria set out in the Bail Act 1982, including whether the applicant might fail to appear in court, commit further offences, endanger the safety of others, or obstruct justice.

The applicant, aged 19, had a significant criminal history involving numerous breaches of bail, bond, and failures to appear in court. The offence in question involved an assault on a complainant with multiple blows, kicks, and a stab wound to the neck. The applicant denied involvement, but two witnesses provided statements implicating him in the assault. The Crown argued that the applicant's criminal history, including recent convictions for reckless driving and alcohol-related offences, indicated a high risk of reoffending and potential witness intimidation.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offence, the applicant's criminal history, and the strength of the evidence against him. Despite the applicant's proposed relocation to Geraldton and offers of accommodation and employment, the court concluded there was a real danger he might reoffend or interfere with witnesses if released on bail. The court hoped that the applicant's current incarceration would expedite his trial to avoid a lengthy wait until 2000.

The application for bail was refused.

Orders