Iordache v DJM - [2023] QSC 134

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Iordache v DJM [2023] QSC 134 PARTIES: ANDREEA ELENA IORDACHE
(applicant)
v DJM
(respondent)

FILE NO: File Number redacted
DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:     Reasons delivered 23 June 2023 DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:     22 June 2023, 23 June 2023
JUDGE:  Davis J

ORDERS: 1. The grant of bail made on 7 June 2023 be set aside.

2. The respondent be remanded in custody.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL –
where the respondent was on bail for 94 offences – where the respondent allegedly committed six offences while on that bail – where the offences committed on bail included break, enter and steal and armed robbery in company where violence was threatened – where the respondent has a long history of offending – where the respondent was granted bail on the further offences – where the police applied for a review of that grant of bail – where the review is a hearing de novo – whether there was an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit an offence that endangered the safety of the community or safety or welfare of a person – whether conditions on release on bail could be imposed to render any such risk acceptable
Bail Act 1980, s 19B
Youth Justice Act 1992, s 48, s 48AAA, s 48AA
Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235; [2000] QCA 501, cited Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616; [1976] HCA 62, cited
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194; [2000] HCA
47, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions v Filippa [2005] 1 Qd R 587; [2004] QSC 470, followed
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v KAZ [2022] QCA 34, cited
Re JOD [2022] QSC 260, cited
Re JTL [2021] QSC 211, considered
Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board [1976] 2 NSWLR 281, cited

COUNSEL: N S Eisenmenger for the applicant
M A Lines for the respondent
I L Evans for the Department of Youth Justice on 22 June 2023
A M Mckay for the Department of Youth Justice on 23 June 2023

SOLICITORS: Queensland Police Service for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
Department of Youth Justice instructed Ms Evans and Mr McKay

The respondent is a child who, on 7 June 2023, was granted bail on 12 charges.

For reasons which will become apparent, charges 1 to 6 are the important ones. They were allegedly committed between 2 June 2023 and 6 June 2023.

Charges 7 to 12 were committed between 5 December 2022 and 8 December 2022 and predate a grant of bail on 27 April 2023.

The June charges were allegedly committed while the child was on bail in respect of 94 offences. He was granted…

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 Iordache v DJM

Details

AGLC: Iordache v DJM [2023] QSC 134
Case: [2023] QSC 134
Decision Date: 23 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Iordache v DJM involved the respondent, who was on bail for 94 offences, allegedly committing six further offences while on that bail. These additional offences included break, enter and steal and armed robbery in company where violence was threatened. The respondent has a history of offending, and upon being charged with the further offences, bail was granted. The police subsequently applied for a review of this grant of bail. The court was required to determine if there was an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit an offence that endangered the safety of the community or the safety or welfare of a person, and if conditions on release on bail could be imposed to render any such risk acceptable.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the new offences, the respondent’s history of offending and the risk of reoffending. The court also took into account the need to protect the community and the potential impact on the safety or welfare of any particular person. Given the serious nature of the new offences, the court found that there was an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit an offence that endangered the safety of the community or the safety or welfare of a person. The court held that no conditions on release on bail could be imposed to render any such risk acceptable.

Accordingly, the court set aside the grant of bail made on 7 June 2023 and ordered that the respondent be remanded in custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The grant of bail made on 7 June 2023 be set aside.

2. The respondent be remanded in custody.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.