Legal Research
Cases
Lacey v. DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP

Lacey v. DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP

Case [2007] QCA 413 23 November 2007

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413

PARTIES:

JADE MICHAEL LACEY
(applicant/appellant)
v
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QUEENSLAND)
(respondent)

DIONNE MATTHEW LACEY
(applicant/appellant)
v
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QUEENSLAND)

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9742 of 2007
Appeal No 9740 of 2007
SC No 4213 of 2007
SC No 4216 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal/Appeal from Bail Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 November 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Daubney J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

In Appeal No 9742 of 2007:

1. Appeal against refusal for bail dismissed

2. Application for bail dismissed

In Appeal No 9740 of 2007:

1. Appeal against refusal for bail dismissed

2. Application for bail dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – GROUNDS FOR GRANTING OR REFUSING – BEFORE TRIAL – GENERALLY – where appellants awaiting trial for various charges including murder – where both applicants in a show cause position under s 16(3) Bail Act 1980 (Qld) – relevance of delay under s 16(3) – whether learned trial judge had proper regard to appellants surrender – whether circumstances have changed materially since original hearing

Bail Act 1980 (Qld) , s 16(3)

DPP v Bakir [2006] QCA 562; Appeal No 10888 of 2006, 22 December 2006, cited
Scrivener v DPP (2001) 125 A Crim R 279, cited
Western Australia v Oates [2004] WASCA 214, cited

Williamson v DPP [2001] 1 Qd R 99; [1999] QCA 356, considered

COUNSEL:

B W Walker SC for the appellants
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Boe Lawyers for the appellants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 11 October 2007 Martin J refused applications by each appellant for bail in relation to the charges for which they were then, and remain, in custody.[1]
[1]Lacey v DPP [2007] QSC 291.

Each appellant now:

(a) appeals against that refusal of bail; and
(b) applies to this Court for bail in its original jurisdiction.

The charges

The appellants face serious charges arising out of events which occurred, or are alleged to have occurred, in April and May 2007.

Each appellant has been charged with murder and unlawful wounding in connection with the death of Kevin Palmer on 6 May 2007. When assessing the prosecution evidence in relation to these charges for the purposes of the bail applications, the learned primary judge noted that the evidence was circumstantial, but that the statements of the prosecution witnesses nevertheless established a “strong case” for the present purpose. The appellants did not contend that his Honour erred in this characterisation of the evidence in relation to those charges.

Each appellant has also been charged with a series of offences, including attempted murder, various assault charges, torture and deprivation of liberty in connection with the alleged abduction of Owen Matthews. The alleged events are…

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 Lacey v. DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP

Details

AGLC: Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413
Case: [2007] QCA 413
Decision Date: 23 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants in Lacey v DPP (Qld) were awaiting trial for various charges, including murder, and had applied for bail under the Bail Act 1980 (Qld). Both applicants were in a show cause position under section 16(3) of the Act, necessitating a higher threshold for bail to be granted. The court was required to decide whether the learned trial judge had given appropriate consideration to the appellants' surrender and whether circumstances had materially changed since the original hearing, particularly in light of the delay in granting bail.

The legal issues centered on the interpretation and application of section 16(3) of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld). The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had properly considered the appellants' surrender and whether the delay in granting bail warranted reconsideration of the bail application. The court had to balance the principle of timely access to bail with the need to ensure public safety and the integrity of the judicial process.

The court found that the learned trial judge had given proper regard to the appellants' surrender and had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case, including the delay in granting bail. The court held that there had been no material change in circumstances since the original hearing that warranted a reconsideration of the bail decision. Consequently, the appeals against the refusal of bail were dismissed, and the applications for bail were rejected. The court emphasised the importance of the trial judge's discretion in these matters and confirmed that the decisions were within the scope of the judge's authority.

Orders

Orders of the court

In Appeal No 9742 of 2007:

1. Appeal against refusal for bail dismissed

2. Application for bail dismissed

In Appeal No 9740 of 2007:

1. Appeal against refusal for bail dismissed

2. Application for bail dismissed

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413

Most Recent Citation

Keys v DPP (Qld) [2009] QCA 220

Cases citing this decision · 15 of 15 shown

Re KLE
[2022] QDC 286 Para 7

…onsidered in the context of the relevant statutory framework and the other competing factors presented. As was said in Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413:[10] “ That exercise of discretion is not an empirical exercise; there are no bright lines drawn to determine conclusively when one important factor…
Re Barbaro
[2022] QSC 58 Para 10

…graphical constraint, no contact provisions and significant limitations on his use of mobile telephones. [10] Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP (Qld) [2007] QCA 413, [13].…
Re Dunshea
[2021] QSC 163 Para 1

…case, the relative importance of that factor may be regarded as outweighing other relevant factors.[31] [31] Lacey v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] QCA 413 at [13].…
Baggaley v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
[2020] QCA 179 Para 14

…tion is not an empirical exercise; there are no bright lines drawn to determine conclusively when one important factor outweighs another.” [6][2007] QCA 413 at [13].…
Re JMT
[2020] QSC 72 Para 20

…etion is not an empirical exercise; there are no bright lines drawn to determine conclusively when one important factor outweighs another.” [30][2007] QCA 413.…
Lynch v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2)
[2020] QSC 64 Para 13

…ge so far as it is relevant. The task facing a judge hearing any application for bail was described in Lacey v DPP (Qld) [6] in the following way: [6][2007] QCA 413 at [13]. “The essence of the exercise of the judge’s discretion is to balance competing considerations and to weigh the relative importance which the…
Matauaina v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2019] QDC 59 Para 1

…he period of time in custody on remand will likely exceed any custodial sentence imposed this may well outweigh other factors. [17] Lacey v DPP (Qld) [2007] QCA 413 at [13].…
Sct v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)
[2017] QCA 131 Para 11

…as was said in the latter case, it is not a “critical factor”.[8] [6][2001] 1 Qd R 99 at 104 [23] per Thomas JA with whom McPherson JA agreed. [7][2007] QCA 413 at [11] (Williams and Keane JJA and Daubney J). [8]Ibid.…
Re Baker
[2013] QMC 17

…n; Da Silva v Director of Public Prosecution; Spence v Director of Public Prosecution [2013] QSC 316 Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413 Neale, Re an Application for Bail [2013] QSC 310 Spence v Queensland Police Service [2013] QMC 14 Williamson v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] 1QdR 99 OTHER SOU…
Neale, Re an Application for Bail
[2013] QSC 310

…3 (Qld) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B CASES: Williamson v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] 1 QdR 99 Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413 Magaming v The Queen [2013] HCA 40 COUNSEL: Ms C McKinnon for the Applicant. Mr M Cowen for the Respondent. SOLICITORS: Anderson Telford Lawyers for the Applican…
Sica v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)
[2010] QCA 18 Para 1

…In Lacey v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] QCA 413, however, this Court expressly disapproved the notion that substantial delay itself establishes that pre-trial incarceration of an accused is unjustified. The court said:…
R v Lacey
[2009] QCA 275 Para 1

…or leave to appeal should be granted and the appeal allowed so that this error can be corrected. [19][2000] QCA 163. [20][2004] QCA 34 at [40]. [21][2007] QCA 413 at [13]. [22][2007] QCA 273 at [22], [29]. [23][2008] QCA 86.…
R v Lacey; ex parte Attorney-General
[2009] QCA 274

…9] HCA 5, considered Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413, cited Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46, cited Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190; [1954] HCA 65, cited Nanan v The State [1986] AC 860, cited Neal v The Queen (1982…
Keys v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)
[2009] QCA 220 Para 1

…d to be balanced against the competing considerations he identified, but did not outweigh them. This approach was endorsed by Lacey v DPP (Qld) [2007] QCA 413, to which the judge referred.…
AP v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)
[2008] QSC 236 Para 1

…So far as such a substantial delay is concerned, reliance is placed by the respondent upon the Court of Appeal authority of DPP v Lacey [2007] QCA 413. The respondent submits that the risk of interfering with Crown witnesses, flight, and committing further offences are not made acceptable merely because this matt…

View all 15 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 7 of 7 shown

Lacey v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)
[2007] QSC 291 Para 1

…tin J refused applications by each appellant for bail in relation to the charges for which they were then, and remain, in custody.[1] [1] Lacey v DPP [2007] QSC 291.…
DPP v Bakir
[2006] QCA 562 Para 1

…s was relevant to the assessment of his conduct for determining whether there was an acceptable risk that he would appear if granted bail. [6][2006] QCA 562 at [17].…
The State of Western Australia v Oates
[2004] WASC 214 Para 1

…he case against the accused requires a lot of witnesses to be called and, therefore, a long time to get to trial. [5] Western Australia v Oates [2004] WASC 214 at [40].…
Le v The Queen
[2004] WASCA 214

…CA 562; Appeal No 10888 of 2006, 22 December 2006, cited Scrivener v DPP (2001) 125 A Crim R 279, cited Western Australia v Oates [2004] WASCA 214, cited Williamson v DPP [2001] 1 Qd R 99; [1999] QCA 356, considered COUNSEL: B W Walker SC for the appellants M J Copley for the respondent SOLICITORS: Boe Lawyers for…
Williamson v Director of Public Prosecutions
[1999] QCA 356

…rivener v DPP (2001) 125 A Crim R 279, cited Western Australia v Oates [2004] WASCA 214, cited Williamson v DPP [2001] 1 Qd R 99; [1999] QCA 356, considered COUNSEL: B W Walker SC for the appellants M J Copley for the respondent SOLICITORS: Boe Lawyers for the appellants Director of Public Prosecutions (Queenslan…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40

…[2]In the sense identified in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, 503.…
House v The King
63 WN 176

…[2]In the sense identified in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, 503.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Bail Act 1980 (Qld)
16(3) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413
PARTIES:	JADE MICHAEL LACEY (applicant/appellant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QUEENSLAND) (respondent) DIONNE MATTHEW LACEY (applicant/appellant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QUEENSLAND) (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9742 of 2007 Appeal No 9740 of 2007 SC No 4213 of 2007 SC No 4216 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal/Appeal from Bail Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 November 2007
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and Daubney J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	In Appeal No 9742 of 2007: 1. Appeal against refusal for bail dismissed 2. Application for bail dismissed In Appeal No 9740 of 2007: 1. Appeal against refusal for bail dismissed 2. Application for bail dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – GROUNDS FOR GRANTING OR REFUSING – BEFORE TRIAL – GENERALLY – where appellants awaiting trial for various charges including murder – where both applicants in a show cause position under s 16(3) Bail Act 1980 (Qld) – relevance of delay under s 16(3) – whether learned trial judge had proper regard to appellants surrender – whether circumstances have changed materially since original hearing Bail Act 1980 (Qld) , s 16(3) DPP v Bakir [2006] QCA 562; Appeal No 10888 of 2006, 22 December 2006, cited Scrivener v DPP (2001) 125 A Crim R 279, cited Western Australia v Oates [2004] WASCA 214, cited Williamson v DPP [2001] 1 Qd R 99; [1999] QCA 356, considered
COUNSEL:	B W Walker SC for the appellants M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Boe Lawyers for the appellants Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent