PINKSTONE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASC 199
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASC 199 | |
| Case No: | MCR:67/1999 | 13 JULY 2000 | |
| Coram: | HEENAN J | 4/08/00 | |
| 6 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal procedure Bail Serious offences Supply of amphetamine and cocaine Conspiracy to supply Change of circumstances since bail revoked by Supreme Court Delay in being brought to trial |
Legislation: | Bail Act 1982, Sch 1 Part C cl 1 and cl 3 |
Case References: | Nil Alexopoulos v The Queen, SCt of Vic (Hampel J); BC9800603; 23 February 1998 Greenham v The Queen (1988) 103 A Crim R 185 Haddad v The Queen, unreported; SCt of NSW (Sully J); Library No 73112/199; 4 November 1999 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 Marotta v The Queen [1999] HCA 4 Rechichi v The Queen [1999] WASC 73 R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144 WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 Yanko v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 31615; 23 January 1996 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal procedure - Bail - Serious offences - Supply of amphetamine and cocaine - Conspiracy to supply - Change of circumstances since bail revoked by Supreme Court - Delay in being brought to trial
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982, Sch 1 Part C cl 1 and cl 3
Result:
Application refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr C Steirn SC & Mr M J Bowden
Respondent : Ms G A Archer
Solicitors:
Applicant : Cannon Bowden & Co
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Alexopoulos v The Queen, SCt of Vic (Hampel J); BC9800603; 23 February 1998
Greenham v The Queen (1988) 103 A Crim R 185
Haddad v The Queen, unreported; SCt of NSW (Sully J); Library No 73112/199; 4 November 1999
Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1
Marotta v The Queen [1999] HCA 4
Rechichi v The Queen [1999] WASC 73
R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279
Yanko v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 31615; 23 January 1996
(Page 3)
1 HEENAN J: The applicant seeks bail in respect of offences with which he is charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and to which he intends to plead not guilty. There are, it seems, three charges: one of supplying 805 gm of amphetamine, one of supplying or attempting to supply 505 gm of cocaine and one of conspiring to supply the cocaine.
2 When he came before the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on the morning of 20…
Continue reading Pinkstone v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199
- Case
- [2000] WASC 199
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties in this case were Pinkstone, the appellant, and The Queen, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was an application by the appellant to have his bail conditions varied. The court involved was the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to supply amphetamine and cocaine and was initially granted bail by the Supreme Court. However, his bail was revoked by the Supreme Court due to concerns about his potential to reoffend and flee the jurisdiction. The appellant subsequently applied to the High Court for his bail to be varied, arguing that there had been a change in circumstances since his bail was revoked, and that there had been an unreasonable delay in being brought to trial.
The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether there had been a change in circumstances since the appellant's bail was revoked and whether the delay in being brought to trial was unreasonable. The court had to consider the principles of bail and the factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether to grant bail to an accused person. The court also had to consider the circumstances of the case, including the seriousness of the offence and the risk of the accused person reoffending or fleeing the jurisdiction.
The court found that there had not been a change in circumstances since the appellant's bail was revoked and that the delay in being brought to trial was not unreasonable. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any change in his circumstances that would warrant a variation of his bail conditions. The court also found that the delay in being brought to trial was not attributable to the appellant and was due to factors beyond his control. The court held that the appellant had not made out a case for the variation of his bail conditions.
The application for the variation of bail conditions was refused. The appellant remained in custody pending trial. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any change in his circumstances that would warrant a variation of his bail conditions, and that the delay in being brought to trial was not unreasonable. The court found that the appellant had not made out a case for the variation of his bail conditions.
The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether there had been a change in circumstances since the appellant's bail was revoked and whether the delay in being brought to trial was unreasonable. The court had to consider the principles of bail and the factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether to grant bail to an accused person. The court also had to consider the circumstances of the case, including the seriousness of the offence and the risk of the accused person reoffending or fleeing the jurisdiction.
The court found that there had not been a change in circumstances since the appellant's bail was revoked and that the delay in being brought to trial was not unreasonable. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any change in his circumstances that would warrant a variation of his bail conditions. The court also found that the delay in being brought to trial was not attributable to the appellant and was due to factors beyond his control. The court held that the appellant had not made out a case for the variation of his bail conditions.
The application for the variation of bail conditions was refused. The appellant remained in custody pending trial. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any change in his circumstances that would warrant a variation of his bail conditions, and that the delay in being brought to trial was not unreasonable. The court found that the appellant had not made out a case for the variation of his bail conditions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application 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.