Pallister v The Queen
[2001] WASC 165
PALLISTER -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASC 165
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASC 165 | |
| Case No: | MCS:33/2001 | 18 & 19 JUNE 2001 | |
| Coram: | SCOTT J | 22/06/01 | |
| 6 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | STEPHEN GRAY PALLISTER THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Bail application Applicant on bail for serious offence after guilty plea Further serious offences alleged Exceptional circumstances required No exceptional circumstances established |
Legislation: | Bail Act 1982 s 14, Schedule 1, Part C, cl 3A |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
BETWEEN : STEPHEN GRAY PALLISTER
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Bail application - Applicant on bail for serious offence after guilty plea - Further serious offences alleged - Exceptional circumstances required - No exceptional circumstances established
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 s 14, Schedule 1, Part C, cl 3A
Result:
Application refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : Ms L Petrusa
Solicitors:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 SCOTT J: The applicant has applied for bail in relation to five charges upon which he has been committed to the District Court to be heard in the Bunbury sessions. Those charges are:
1. Aggravated burglary
2. Unlawful wounding
3. Threatening to kill
4. Deprivation of liberty
5. Manufacturing amphetamine.
2 Those charges were preferred on 7 and 10 February 2001. The series of charges against the applicant commenced on 9 September 2000 when his house and property were raided by the drug squad. In that raid the police uncovered what was alleged to be a laboratory, used amongst other things, for the manufacture of amphetamine. The applicant was charged with the offence of manufacturing amphetamines between 1 January 2000 and 9 September 2000. The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court in Bunbury on 6 March 2001 before Judge O'Sullivan, was convicted, and remanded on bail for sentence. The matter could not be disposed of at that time because a chemistry centre report detailing the analysis of chemicals found on the applicant’s property was not then available. That matter has been remanded to a status conference on 7 August 2001 for a trial of the issues. I am advised that the applicant will be sentenced sometime prior to 6 September 2001.
3 In relation to that charge the applicant was arrested and released to bail and whilst on bail it is alleged that the further charges mentioned above were committed. The original charge of manufacturing amphetamine is a serious offence within the definition of that term in Schedule 2 to the Bail Act 1982 ("the Bail Act"). In addition the further offences alleged against the applicant on 7 and 14 February 2001 as set out above also contain offences which are "serious" offences as defined in the Bail Act. As a consequence cl 3A of Schedule 1 Part C of the Bail Act applies. That clause provides:
"Bail where serious offence committed while defendant on bail for another serious offence
3A(1) Notwithstanding cl 1 or 2 or any other provision of this Act, where -
(Page 4)
- (a) a defendant is in custody awaiting an appearance in court before conviction for a serious offence; and
(b) the serious offence is alleged to have been committed while the defendant was -
(i) on bail for; or
(ii) at liberty under an early release order made in respect of, another serious offence,
the judicial officer or (if section 16A does not apply) the authorised officer in whom jurisdiction is vested shall refuse to grant bail for the serious offence referred to in paragraph (a) unless the judicial officer or authorised officer -
(c) is satisfied that there are exceptional reasons why the defendant should not be kept in custody and, if clauses 3B applies, is so satisfied only after complying with that clause; and
(d) is also satisfied that bail may properly be granted having regard to the provisions of clauses 1 and 3 or, in the case of a child defendant, clauses 2 and 3."
4 The applicant submits that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in relation to the charges alleged against him following the incidents on 7 and 14 February 2001. He maintains that there are no allegations of any substance made against him. For that reason exceptional circumstances he contends have been established.
5 Putting aside for one moment the charge of manufacturing amphetamine the remaining charges arise out of an incident alleged to have occurred on the property of Wayne Allan McKeagg on Wednesday 7 February 2001. The hand up brief in relation to that matter and the evidence of McKeagg has been provided to the Court. It is not necessary to descend into detail of McKeagg's statement. It is sufficient to say that if he gives evidence in accordance with that statement, and if his evidence is believed, then there is a case for the applicant to answer in relation to each of the charges alleged against him arising out of that incident.
(Page 5)
6 The applicant in the course of the hearing of this application has submitted that not only does McKeagg have a serious criminal record, but his evidence is inherently unreliable. In addition the applicant maintains that McKeagg had a reason to provide a false statement about him because the applicant at the time was a registered police informant who provided information to the police concerning McKeagg's illegal drug activities. The applicant has submitted that McKeagg is charged with importing illegal drugs and is on bail for that charge pending trial. Counsel for the Crown concedes that there was a period when the applicant was a registered police informer, but maintains that he never provided any information of use to the police. He was deregistered as an informer prior to the alleged incidents involving McKeagg.
7 The applicant has asked the Court to view four video tapes arising out of the two police raids conducted on his property, on 8 September 2000 and 14 February 2001. I have had the opportunity of examining sections of those video tapes which reveal the shed in which the manufacture of amphetamine is said to have taken place. Whilst it can properly be said that those premises do not appear to be a laboratory in the ordinary sense, a significant quantity of chemicals was nonetheless kept there. That is apparent on each video tape. In addition I have had the opportunity of perusing the video tapes conducted between the detectives and the applicant following each of those searches. In relation to the first charge of manufacturing amphetamine there are clear admissions by the applicant that he had experimented with the manufacture of amphetamine using a number of different methods. He however maintained that all of the amphetamine produced was for his own use.
8 In relation to the second raid on 14 February 2001 the applicant denied any involvement in further manufacture of amphetamine.
9 I have also had the opportunity of perusing the pre-sentence report obtained by the District Court following the applicant's plea of guilty to the first matter on 6 March 2001. Whilst again it is not necessary to descend into detail the pre-sentence report is adverse to the applicant and there is the distinct possibility that a custodial sentence may be imposed. As I have said that matter will be heard in the District Court at Bunbury on 7 August 2001. The applicant must be sentenced by 6 September 2001 in relation to that charge.
10 Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the applicant's wife and children have left Australia and are in Denmark. In addition the applicant's property at Manjimup has been sold although settlement has
(Page 6)
- not taken place. The applicant has no material ties to Western Australia. Against that, however, the applicant maintains that his parents live in Bridgetown and are prepared to go surety for him. The applicant maintains that he is anxious to remain in Western Australia and to clear his name in relation to the charges preferred against him. All of those matters need to be taken into account.
11 I would also refer to the applicant's behaviour during the course of this application where he demonstrated his volatility.
12 In my view there is nothing exceptional arising from the applicant’s claims that the case against him is weak. The question of credibility will ultimately be a matter for the jury. On an application for bail matters of credibility cannot be properly tested and the strength of the case against the applicant is a difficult matter to assess. Whether McKeagg's evidence is credible is a matter that can only be determined at trial.
13 In my opinion if the applicant is released on bail there would be a risk to McKeagg who is the principal Crown witness in relation to the matters that allegedly occurred on 7 February 2001. I am told that McKeagg is on bail.
14 One of the matters that falls for consideration under cl 1 of Part C of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act is:
"Whether, if the defendant is not kept in custody he may -
(iv) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person."
16 In all the circumstances I am not persuaded that the applicant has demonstrated sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of bail. The application will be refused.
0
0
0