MUNRO -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASC 159

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 159
Case No:	MCS:7/2001	Heard:	15 JUNE 2001
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	20/06/01
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail refused
PDF Version

Parties:	ERROL MUNRO THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Bail Application for bail pending trial Second application to Supreme Court Whether changed circumstances Risk of flight
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), Schedule 1, Part B, cl 4(a), Schedule 1, Part B, cl 1, cl 3
Case References:	WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91 KM v R, unreported; SCt of WA (Nicholson J); Library No 7193; 14 July 1988 Townsend v The Queen [2000] WASC 63

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : MUNRO -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASC 159 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 15 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 20 JUNE 2001 FILE NO/S : MCS 7 of 2001 BETWEEN : ERROL MUNRO

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Bail - Application for bail pending trial - Second application to Supreme Court - Whether changed circumstances - Risk of flight

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), Schedule 1, Part B, cl 4(a), Schedule 1, Part B, cl 1, cl 3

Result:

Bail refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr A Palumbo

Respondent : Ms C Barbagallo

Solicitors:

Applicant : Alex Palumbo

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91
KM v R, unreported; SCt of WA (Nicholson J); Library No 7193; 14 July 1988
Townsend v The Queen [2000] WASC 63

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This is an application for bail pending trial by application dated 12 June 2001, supported by an affidavit of Alessandro Palumbo dated 12 June 2001.

2 The applicant is charged with four others, Theodore Max Snider, Shane Lindsay Lehman, Simon Mark Jones and Vance David Jones with offences of aggravated burglary, deprivation of liberty and armed robbery in company. With two co-defendants, namely Shane Lindsay Lehman and Simon Mark Jones, he is charged with an offence of conspiracy to commit assault occasioning bodily harm to one Dino Retto. He was arrested in the afternoon of Thursday 15 February 2001 by members of the Tactical Response Group pursuant to a warrant issued under the Firearms Act.

3 The applicant was initially refused bail by a Magistrate sitting in the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions on 21 February 2001. A further application was made to this Court by notice of motion dated 26 February 2001. That was supported by an affidavit of Alessandro Palumbo dated 22 February 2001.

4 Templeman J ordered that an affidavit or affidavits be filed by the respondent and an affidavit of Brett Thomas Bonshore was accordingly filed on 13 March 2001.

5 The substantive application was heard…

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 Munro v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Munro v The Queen [2001] WASC 159
Case: [2001] WASC 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Munro v The Queen, the applicant, Errol Munro, sought bail pending his trial for multiple serious charges including aggravated burglary, deprivation of liberty, armed robbery in company, and conspiracy to commit assault occasioning bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The legal issues before the Court were whether there had been any changes in circumstances since the initial refusal of bail that warranted reconsideration, and whether the risk of Munro absconding if granted bail outweighed the injustice of continued detention pending trial.

The Court found that while there were some changes in circumstances, such as Munro's temporary release and subsequent re-arrest, and the release of his co-defendants on bail, these did not sufficiently mitigate the risk of flight. The evidence against Munro was considered strong, particularly concerning the armed robbery charge, and the potential sentence if convicted was substantial. Munro's ties to Western Australia were deemed weak, and there was an assertion that he had criminal connections that could assist in his flight. The Court concluded that the risk of Munro absconding if granted bail was too high, and therefore refused the application for bail.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for bail be, and is hereby, refused.

Orders