HODDY -v- HAWES [2003] WASC 22

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 22
Case No:	MCS:5/2003	Heard:	31 JANUARY 2003
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	31/01/03
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LESLEY THOMAS HODDY WAYNE ANTHONY HAWES
Catchwords:	Bail Charge of wilfully and unlawfully causing explosions Whether applicant required to show exceptional circumstances justifying bail Threats against police allegedly made by applicant Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982, s 14, s 22, Sch 1 Pt C cl 1 and cl 3 Criminal Code, s 454 Misuse of Drugs Act 1981
Case References:	Fawcett v The Queen [2002] WASC 285 Jemielita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362 Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162 Pinkstone v The Queen (2000) 119 A Crim R 462 WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : HODDY -v- HAWES [2003] WASC 22 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 31 JANUARY 2003 DELIVERED : 31 JANUARY 2003 FILE NO/S : MCS 5 of 2003 BETWEEN : LESLEY THOMAS HODDY

Applicant

AND

WAYNE ANTHONY HAWES

Respondent

Catchwords:

Bail - Charge of wilfully and unlawfully causing explosions - Whether applicant required to show exceptional circumstances justifying bail - Threats against police allegedly made by applicant - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982, s 14, s 22, Sch 1 Pt C cl 1 and cl 3

Criminal Code, s 454
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981

Result:

Application allowed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms V Amidzic

Respondent : Mr K P Bates

Solicitors:

Applicant : Amidzic & Co

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Fawcett v The Queen [2002] WASC 285
Jemielita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362
Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162
Pinkstone v The Queen (2000) 119 A Crim R 462
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 HASLUCK J: This is an application for bail made by the applicant, Leslie Thomas Hoddy, pending the hearing of certain charges under the Criminal Code.

2 The application comes before me pursuant to s 14 of the Bail Act1982 which provides that a Judge of the Supreme Court may exercise the power to grant bail which is conferred upon any other judicial officer and to revoke or vary any bail previously granted.

Evidentiary materials

3 The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the application for bail, sworn by his solicitor, Vesna Amidzic, on 23 January 2003 (the "first Amidzic affidavit"). Exhibited to the affidavit is a statement of material facts prepared by the police service and the transcript of a hearing before the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on 16 December 2002, on which occasion evidence was led from Superintendent David Caporn.

4 The applicant relies also upon two…

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 Hoddy v Hawes

Details

AGLC: Hoddy v Hawes [2003] WASC 22
Case: [2003] WASC 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Lesley Thomas Hoddy, was charged with causing explosions likely to cause serious injury to property in Ora Banda. He applied for bail pending his trial. The Crown opposed the application. Hasluck J considered the Bail Act 1982 and the relevant case law, and concluded that the applicant was obliged to demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to justify a grant of bail. The court gave weight to the applicant's ties to the State, the length of time likely to elapse before the trial, and the applicant's challenge to the strength of the Crown case. The court was also mindful of the applicant's threats to the police and the risk that these could prejudice the integrity of the trial process. Ultimately, the court considered that the risks of this kind were not sufficient to outweigh the other factors in favour of bail. The court granted bail, subject to certain conditions.

Orders