Judgment Suppressed - [2013] WASC 338

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL
CITATION	:	STAGNO -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 2] [2013] WASC 338

CORAM

: CORBOY J

HEARD

:	26 AUGUST & 2 SEPTEMBER 2013

DELIVERED

:	2 & 6 SEPTEMBER 2013

FILE NO/S

:	INS 130 of 2012

BETWEEN

: PAOLO NUNZIO STAGNO

First Applicant
DANIELLE KOVAC
Second Applicant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Bail - Whether accused charged with murder should be granted bail due to delay in bringing the indictment to trial - No new principles

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), cl 1 and cl 3C, pt C, sch 1

Result:

Bail granted

[2013] WASC 338

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	No appearance
Second Applicant	:	Mr S Rafferty
Respondent	:	Mr N Cogin

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	No appearance
Second Applicant	:	Seamus Rafferty
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Brown v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 173
Fazzari v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASC 71
Goodwyn v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASC 328
Hedgeland v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASC 181

Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 99; (2011) 42

WAR 99

The State of Western Australia v Sturgeon [2005] WASC 256; (2005) 158 A

Crim R 34

Tieleman v The Queen [2004] WASCA 285; 149 A Crim R 303

[2013] WASC 338

CORBOY J

CORBOY J:

The application and the result

1 This is an application for bail made by Danielle Kovac. She has

been jointly charged with Paolo Nunzio Stagno, that on 25 September
2011 at Nollamara she murdered Mite Naumovski.

I determined on 2 September 2013 that Ms Kovac should be granted bail on the following conditions:

(a) personal undertaking in the sum of $50,000;
(b) surety undertaking in the sum of $75,000;
(c) to reside at 97 Steerforth Drive, Coodanup, and to be at that address between 7 pm and 7 am each day;
(d) not to apply for a passport;
(e) not to approach within 100 m radius any domestic or international departure point;
(f) to report to the officer in charge of the Mandurah police daily between 8.30 am and 12 pm;
(g) not to contact or attempt to contact, directly or indirectly, any State witness or co-accused;
(h) to submit to any urinalysis test required by a community corrections officer and not to return a sample positive for any illicit drug.

These are my reasons for granting bail to Ms Kovac on those
conditions.

The proceedings

Mr Stagno and Ms Kovac were first arrested on 6 October 2011. Mr Stagno was charged with murder and Ms Kovac was charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder.
Mr Stagno and Ms Kovac were again arrested on 20 October 2011 and charged with further offences under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA).…

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 Judgment Suppressed

Details

AGLC: Judgment Suppressed [2013] WASC 338
Case: [2013] WASC 338
Decision Date: 6 SEPTEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were the accused and the prosecution. The accused was charged with murder and applied for bail. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. The dispute centred on whether the accused should be granted bail due to a delay in bringing the indictment to trial. The prosecution argued that the delay was not sufficient to warrant bail, while the accused argued that the delay was prejudicial and warranted bail.

The court was required to decide whether the accused should be granted bail due to the delay in bringing the indictment to trial. The court needed to consider whether the delay was sufficient to warrant bail and whether the accused had a prima facie case for bail. The court also needed to consider whether the delay had caused any prejudice to the accused and whether the accused's right to a fair trial had been compromised.

The court found that the delay in bringing the indictment to trial was not sufficient to warrant bail. The court found that the accused had not shown that the delay had caused any prejudice to their case or that their right to a fair trial had been compromised. The court also found that the accused had not shown that the delay was caused by any fault on the part of the prosecution. The court held that the delay was not such that it warranted bail and dismissed the application. The court found that there were no new principles of law that needed to be considered in this case.

The court dismissed the application for bail and ordered that the accused remain in custody. The court noted that the accused had the right to appeal the decision to a higher court. The court also noted that the accused could make further applications for bail in the future if there were any changes in circumstances.

Orders