Legal Research
Cases
Pinkstone v The Queen

Pinkstone v The Queen

Case [2000] WASC 321 18 December 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

PINKSTONE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASC 321

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 321
Case No:	MCR:67/1999	Heard:	14-15 DECEMBER 2000
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	18/12/00
No of pages:	21	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application refused
PDF Version

Parties:	ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal procedure Bail Serious offences Attempting to supply cocaine; supplying methylampehtamine Bail previously refused on two occasions by Supreme Court Whether change of cirumstances Exceptional circumstances Delay in being brought to trial Risk of applicant absconding
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14(2a), Sch 1, Part C, cl 1 and cl 3
Case References:	Alexopoulos v R, unreported; SCt of Vic; BC 9800603; 23 February 1998 Christian v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 9650095; 3 March 1995 Gillis v Gawned (1992) 8 WAR 211 Marotta v R [1999] HCA 4 Rechichi [1999] WASC 73 WCVB v R (1989) 1 WAR 279 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 R v Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 R v Cookson (1989) 45 A Crim R 121 Gavin v The Queen (1991) 6 WAR 195 Bond v The Queen [2000] HCA 13

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : PINKSTONE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASC 321 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 14-15 DECEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 18 DECEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : MCR 67 of 1999 BETWEEN : ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal procedure - Bail - Serious offences - Attempting to supply cocaine; supplying methylampehtamine - Bail previously refused on two occasions by Supreme Court - Whether change of cirumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Delay in being brought to trial - Risk of applicant absconding

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14(2a), Sch 1, Part C, cl 1 and cl 3

Result:

Application refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr R Richter QC & Mr W B Harris

Respondent : Ms G A Archer

Solicitors:

Applicant : Andree Horrigan

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Alexopoulos v R, unreported; SCt of Vic; BC 9800603; 23 February 1998
Christian v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 9650095; 3 March 1995
Gillis v Gawned (1992) 8 WAR 211
Marotta v R [1999] HCA 4
Rechichi [1999] WASC 73
WCVB v R (1989) 1 WAR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1
R v Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
R v Cookson (1989) 45 A Crim R 121
Gavin v The Queen (1991) 6 WAR 195
Bond v The Queen [2000] HCA 13

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This is an application for bail by notice of motion filed on 8 December 2000 and which was heard on 14 and 15 December. It is supported by the following affidavits: (1) John Roger Nekvapil, dated 26 November 2000; (2) Regine Mikellides, dated 1 December 2000; (3) the applicant's affidavit dated and filed 14 December 2000; (4) Barry…

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 Pinkstone v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321
Case: [2000] WASC 321
Decision Date: 18 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pinkstone v The Queen, the defendant appealed against the refusal of bail by the Supreme Court, which had twice denied his application. The case involved allegations of attempting to supply cocaine and supplying methylamphetamine, categorised as serious offences. The defendant's bail application was heard in the High Court, where the key issues centred on whether there had been a change in circumstances warranting a reconsideration of bail, specifically regarding the delay in bringing the defendant to trial and the risk of absconding. The High Court examined whether these factors constituted exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from the usual principles governing bail decisions for serious offences.

The High Court evaluated whether the significant delay in the trial proceedings and the risk of the defendant absconding constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a bail review. The Court considered the length of the delay and its impact on the defendant's ability to prepare a defence, as well as the specific risks associated with releasing the defendant on bail given the nature of the alleged offences. The Court also weighed the public interest in ensuring that serious criminal proceedings are brought to a timely conclusion against the individual's right to liberty pending trial.

The Court concluded that despite the delay and the risk of absconding, these factors did not amount to exceptional circumstances sufficient to override the presumption against bail for serious indictable offences. The Court held that the delay, while regrettable, did not significantly prejudice the defendant's ability to mount a defence, and the risk of absconding, while present, did not reach the level required to warrant exceptional consideration. The application for bail was, therefore, refused, and the previous orders denying bail were upheld.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321

Most Recent Citation

Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162

Cases citing this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Neumann v The State of Western Australia
[2011] WASC 173 Para 3

…ghed in favour of bail in considering the questions in Bail Act sch 1 pt C, cl 1 read with cl 3. As to exceptional reasons, see Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321; (2000) 119 A Crim R 462 and Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162; as to cl 1 read with cl 3, see The State of Western Australia v Oates [2004] WASC 21…
Bertolami v The State of Western Australia
[2009] WASC 269 Para 8

…asons in respect of charges for serious offences (including murder): WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279; Jemielita v The Queen ; Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321; (2000) 119 A Crim R 462; Fazzari v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASC 71; Rauch v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASC 241; and Sabau…
Atherton v Western Australia
[2005] WASC 15

…ueen [2000] WASC 268 Oates v The Queen [2003] WASC 180 Outman v The Queen [2000] WASC 303 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321 R v Jemielita (1995) 78 A Crim R 91 R v Robertson [2001] WASC 120 Rechichi v The Queen [1999] WASC 73 Saka v The Queen [2001] WASC 92 WCVB v The Quee…
Oates v The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
[2003] WASCA 329

…93; 14 July 1988 Musarri v The Queen [2001] WASC 200. , Oates v The Queen [2003] WASC 180 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321. , Saka v The Queen [2001] WASC 92 United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 183 ALR 645 Nil…
Johns v The Queen
[2003] WASC 270

…Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321…
Nguyen v STOYKOVSIC
[2003] WASC 189

…mpel J); 23 February 1998 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v McLellan [2001] WASC 366 Ilam v Dando [1999] WASCA 129 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321 WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 R v Clarke II (2001) 118 A Crim R 585…
Eissa v The Queen
[2003] WASC 92

…a v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362 KM v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7193; 14 July 1988 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321 R v Shrestha (1991) 173 CLR 48 Saka v The Queen [2001] WASC 92…
Tregurtha v The Queen
[2002] WASC 311 Para 23

…v The Queen ( supra ), Roberts‑Smith J surveyed a number of relevant dicta on this topic. He referred to what he had said in Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321 by reference to the unreported decision of Hampel J in the Victorian Supreme Court in Alexopoulos v The Queen , unreported; SCt of Vic; 23 February 199…
Christie v The Queen
[2002] WASC 256 Para 8

…(1994) 12 WAR 362; Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1. Further, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances: Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321. The Crown opposed the grant of bail.…
Lewandowski v Sherman
[2002] WASC 239

…Queen [2001] WASC 153 Jemielita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321 R v Watson (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 100 Rus v The Queen [2000] WASC 297 Saka v The Queen[2001] WASC 92 WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 Alexopoulos v The…
R v Pinkstone
[2001] WASC 252 Para 7

…e was represented by Mr R Richter QC and Mr W B Harris. I handed down my decision on the bail application on 18 December 2001 ( Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321). I refused the application.…
Musarri v The Queen
[2001] WASC 200 Para 15

…ould operate so as to overcome the prohibition in cl 2. My attention has now been drawn to the decision of Roberts‑Smith J in Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321, where his Honour held that the change to be demonstrated is a relevant change. I respectfully agree.…
Outman v The Queen
[2001] WASC 162 Para 6

…ing an accused to trial can be an exceptional circumstance or reason for granting bail. In my judgment on a bail application in Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321 delivered on 18 December 2000, I referred to the Victorian Supreme Court case of Alexopoulos v The Queen , unreported; SCt of Victoria; 23 February 1…

View all 13 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Gavin v The Queen
[2018] NZHC 1826

…99] WASC 73 WCVB v R (1989) 1 WAR 279 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 R v Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 R v Cookson (1989) 45 A Crim R 121 Gavin v The Queen (1991) 6 WAR 195 Bond v The Queen [2000] HCA 13…
Bond v The Queen
[2000] HCA 13

…279 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 R v Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 R v Cookson (1989) 45 A Crim R 121 Gavin v The Queen (1991) 6 WAR 195 Bond v The Queen [2000] HCA 13…
R v Rechichi
[1999] WASC 73

…bruary 1998 Christian v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 9650095; 3 March 1995 Gillis v Gawned (1992) 8 WAR 211 Marotta v R [1999] HCA 4 Rechichi [1999] WASC 73 WCVB v R (1989) 1 WAR 279 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 R v Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 R v Cookson (1989) 45 A Crim R 121 Gavin v The Queen (1991) 6 WA…
Marotta v The Queen
[1999] HCA 4

…Vic; BC 9800603; 23 February 1998 Christian v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 9650095; 3 March 1995 Gillis v Gawned (1992) 8 WAR 211 Marotta v R [1999] HCA 4 Rechichi [1999] WASC 73 WCVB v R (1989) 1 WAR 279 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 R v Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 R v Cookson (1989) 45 A Crim R 121 Gavin…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Bail Act 1982 (WA)
14(2a) 2 mentions
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
1 mention