PALLISTER -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASC 295

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 295
Case No:	MCS:33/2001	Heard:	11 OCTOBER 2001
Coram:	WHITE AUJ	Delivered:	25/10/01
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	STEPHEN GRAY PALLISTER THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Application for bail Previous applications refused Whether new circumstances have arisen or circumstances changed since the jurisdiction was invoked Whether exceptional reasons why the applicant should not be kept in custody Turns on own facts
Legislation:	The Bail Act 1982
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : PALLISTER -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASC 295 CORAM : WHITE AUJ HEARD : 11 OCTOBER 2001 DELIVERED : 25 OCTOBER 2001 FILE NO/S : MCS 33 of 2001 MATTER : Section 14 of the Bail Act (as amended) 1982

BETWEEN : STEPHEN GRAY PALLISTER

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Application for bail - Previous applications refused - Whether new circumstances have arisen or circumstances changed since the jurisdiction was invoked - Whether exceptional reasons why the applicant should not be kept in custody - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

The Bail Act 1982

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr M T Trowell QC

Respondent : Ms L B Black

Solicitors:

Applicant : Michael Tudori

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 WHITE AUJ: The applicant, who is presently in custody in Bunbury applies to be released on bail. Previous such applications by him have been refused in the Court of Petty Sessions in Bunbury, in this Court by Scott J, and in the District Court by Martino DCJ as recently as 2 October 2001. There are, relevantly, four indictments which have been presented against the applicant. One has been concluded and the remaining three are pending.

2 The first, Indictment No 131/00, to which the applicant pleaded guilty on 13 November 2000, charged him with one count of the manufacture of methylamphetamine between 1 January 2000 and 9 September 2000. The applicant was released on bail, following his conviction, and, on 7 September 2001, he was sentenced to a two year intensive supervision order with programming and supervision requirements.

3 The second Indictment, No 75/01 charges the applicant with one count of aggravated burglary, unlawful wounding, threats to kill and deprivation of liberty, alleged to have occurred on 7 February 2001, at a time when the applicant was on bail in relation to sentencing following his conviction in respect of Indictment No 131/00. Senior counsel for the applicant submits that the Crown case in respect of this indictment is weak in that it relies upon the uncorroborated and disputed word of the complainant.

4 The third Indictment, No 86/01, charges the applicant with one count of possession of cannabis resin, with intent to sell or supply it to another, one count…

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 Pallister v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pallister v The Queen [2001] WASC 295
Case: [2001] WASC 295
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pallister v The Queen involved the applicant, Stephen Gray Pallister, applying for bail under the provisions of the Bail Act 1982. The application was heard by White AUJ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, with the matter previously being dismissed by other courts. Pallister had been in custody since 14 February 2001 and faced four indictments, one of which had resulted in a conviction and sentencing to a two-year intensive supervision order. The applicant denied the remaining charges, which included aggravated burglary, unlawful wounding, threats to kill, deprivation of liberty, and possession with intent to sell or supply various illicit substances.

The legal issues before the court involved whether new circumstances had arisen or the circumstances had changed since the jurisdiction was invoked, and if there were exceptional reasons why the applicant should not be kept in custody. The applicant argued that changes in his personal circumstances, such as the return of his family to Perth and a job offer, warranted a reconsideration of his bail application. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that there were no exceptional reasons to grant bail.

The court found that the changes in Pallister's circumstances were sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the bail application, but ultimately determined that none of the applicant's submissions constituted exceptional reasons for granting bail. The court concluded that the risk of Pallister interfering with the complainant remained, and thus dismissed the application for bail.

The final orders of the court were that the application for bail was dismissed.

Orders