OUTMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASC 303

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 303
Case No:	MCS:79/2000	Heard:	1 DECEMBER 2000
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	14/12/00
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for bail refused
PDF Version

Parties:	DAVID JOHN LOUIS OUTMAN THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Bail Act Application for bail while on bail for another serious offence Whether matters relied upon amount to exceptional circumstances Nature of charges Strength of prosecution case
Legislation:	Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(b) Bail Act 1982, s 14
Case References:	Alexopoulos v R, unreported; SCt of Vic (Hampel J); BC 9800603; 23 February 1998 Jemielita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362 Pinkstone v R [2000] WASC 199 Townsend v The Queen [2000] WASC 63 WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 Dobrosavlyevic v Allen, unreported; SCt of WA (Pidgeon J); Library No 6656; 1 April 1987 Unchango & Ors v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Templeman J); Library No 980346; 12 June 1998

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : OUTMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASC 303 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 1 DECEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 14 DECEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : MCS 79 of 2000 BETWEEN : DAVID JOHN LOUIS OUTMAN

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Bail Act - Application for bail while on bail for another serious offence - Whether matters relied upon amount to exceptional circumstances - Nature of charges - Strength of prosecution case

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(b)

Bail Act 1982, s 14

Result:

Application for bail refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr J J Scudds

Respondent : Ms V A Prentice

Solicitors:

Applicant : J J Scudds & Associates

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Alexopoulos v R, unreported; SCt of Vic (Hampel J); BC 9800603; 23 February 1998
Jemielita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362
Pinkstone v R [2000] WASC 199
Townsend v The Queen [2000] WASC 63
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Dobrosavlyevic v Allen, unreported; SCt of WA (Pidgeon J); Library No 6656; 1 April 1987
Unchango & Ors v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Templeman J); Library No 980346; 12 June 1998

(Page 3)

1 HASLUCK J: This is an application for bail by an accused person awaiting trial. The application is brought pursuant to s 14 of the Bail Act1982 which provides that a Judge of the Supreme Court may exercise a power to grant bail which is conferred upon any other judicial officer.

2 The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant sworn 24 November 2000 and by the affidavit of Jeremy James Scudds sworn 27 November 2000, to which is exhibited a copy of the complaint reflecting the charge against the applicant and related depositions. Counsel for the applicant has also filed written submissions. By…

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 Outman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Outman v The Queen [2000] WASC 303
Case: [2000] WASC 303
Decision Date: 14 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Outman v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the respondent, the Queen, was represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The applicant, Mr Outman, sought bail while already on bail for another serious offence. The central issue before the court was whether the circumstances presented by Mr Outman were exceptional enough to warrant a reconsideration of his bail status for the new charges.

The legal issues the court needed to address were primarily centred on the provisions of the Bail Act and the principles that govern bail decisions. The court had to consider the nature of the charges against Mr Outman, the strength of the prosecution's case, and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual principles governing bail applications. The court also needed to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of the community and the administration of justice.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that the nature of the charges against Mr Outman, which were serious in nature, coupled with the strength of the prosecution's case, did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a change in his bail status. The court held that the ongoing risk posed by Mr Outman to the community and the potential for interference with witnesses outweighed any arguments in favour of granting bail. Consequently, the court refused the application for bail.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for bail refused

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.