OATES -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASC 180

Link to Appeal :

[2003] WASCA 329

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 180
Case No:	MCS:27/2003	Heard:	12 SEPTEMBER 2003
Coram:	WHEELER J	Delivered:	18/09/03
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ANTONY GORDON OATES THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Bail Previous application to Supreme Court refused Fresh application claiming change in circumstances Balance of factors Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982
Case References:	Pallister v The Queen [2001] WASC 295 Van Blitterswyk v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8132; 16 February 1990 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : OATES -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASC 180 CORAM : WHEELER J HEARD : 12 SEPTEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 18 SEPTEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : MCS 27 of 2003 BETWEEN : ANTONY GORDON OATES

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Bail - Previous application to Supreme Court refused - Fresh application claiming change in circumstances - Balance of factors - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr P B O'Neal

Respondent : Mr J A Scholz

Solicitors:

Applicant : Zilkens & Co

Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Pallister v The Queen [2001] WASC 295
Van Blitterswyk v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8132; 16 February 1990

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER J: In June this year the applicant appeared in the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on a complaint relating to a number of indictable offences. Count 1 was a count of conspiracy to defraud contrary to s 412 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty for which is 7 years' imprisonment. There were a further seven charges of making improper use of his position as an officer of a company contrary to s 294(4) and s 570 of the Companies (WA) Code with a further seven alternative charges of failing to act honestly in the exercise of his powers and the discharge of his duties as an officer of a company contrary to s 294(1)(b) and s 570. Two alleged co-offenders who were originally named in the same complaint, although (apart from the conspiracy count) on different counts, have pleaded guilty to certain of the charges and have been dealt with. The disposition of their matters, and the facts alleged by the Crown, suggest that a term of imprisonment would be the most likely disposition in the event of the applicant being convicted. Bail was refused.

2 On 4 July the applicant came before me with an application for bail. I refused it. The reasons which I gave are to be found in the transcript of the hearing on that occasion. That application was made in the context of the applicant having been extradited from Poland,…

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 Oates v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Oates v The Queen [2003] WASC 180
Case: [2003] WASC 180
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the case of Oates v The Queen was heard by Wheeler J on 12 September 2003. The applicant, Antony Gordon Oates, sought bail in relation to various indictable offences, including conspiracy to defraud and improper use of his position as an officer of a company. The court was required to determine whether there had been a change in circumstances since the applicant's previous bail application was refused, warranting a reconsideration of the bail application.

The court considered three broad categories of factors: personal factors relating to the applicant, the nature of the offences and the preparation for trial, and practical considerations, including the applicant's ability to leave Australia and return to Poland without valid travel documents. The court found that while there were some minor differences in the information available, they did not amount to a significant change in circumstances that would warrant a fresh consideration of the bail application. The court dismissed the application for bail.

The final orders of the court were that the application for bail be dismissed. The court held that the new material put before it did not amount to a change of circumstance or the discovery of new facts which would trigger a fresh consideration of the applicant's bail application. The applicant remained in custody pending trial.

Orders