Pitt v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   PITT -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 2] [2020] WASCA 96
CORAM:   MAZZA JA
HEARD:   13 MAY 2020
DELIVERED          :   13 MAY 2020
PUBLISHED           :   16 JUNE 2020
FILE NO/S:   CACR 15 of 2020
BETWEEN:   GEORGE HENRY PITT
Appellant

AND

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CACR 16 of 2020
BETWEEN: GEORGE HENRY PITT
Appellant

AND

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   BOWDEN DCJ
File Number            :   IND 51 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Application for bail pending appeal - Changed circumstances not established

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14(2a)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CACR 15 of 2020

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	K Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

CACR 16 of 2020

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	K Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Pitt v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 54
Stephens v The Queen [2004] WASCA 22

MAZZA JA:

(These reasons were delivered extemporaneously and have been edited from the transcript.)

Before the court is the appellant's application for bail pending appeal filed 28 April 2020. That application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the appellant on 15 April 2020.
On 25 March 2020, I dismissed the appellant's first application for bail.[1] The application of 28 April 2020 is the appellant's second application for bail. In order for me to grant the second application for bail, the appellant must demonstrate in accordance with s 14(2a) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) that new facts have been discovered, or new circumstances have arisen or circumstances have changed since the occasion when I refused bail, or that he failed to adequately present his case in his first application for bail.
[1] Pitt v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 54.
Any change of circumstances must be a material change.[2] Neither the affidavit sworn by the appellant in support of his second application for bail pending appeal, nor anything that the appellant has said in his oral submissions, satisfy me of the requirements in s 14(2a) of the Bail Act. Therefore, I do not have jurisdiction to grant the appellant bail, and accordingly, the application is dismissed.
[2] Stephens v The Queen [2004] WASCA 22 [10].
The order that I make is as follows:
(1)The appellant's application filed 28 April 2020 for bail pending appeal is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
LT
Associate to the Honourable Justice Mazza
16 JUNE 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pitt v The State of Western Australia [No 2] involved an application for bail pending an appeal against a conviction. The applicant, Pitt, had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and was currently serving a sentence. Pitt sought bail pending the outcome of his appeal against his conviction and sentence. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether there had been a change in circumstances since the initial bail application, and whether those changes warranted a reconsideration of the bail decision. The court had to weigh the applicant's right to liberty against the public interest in ensuring that the applicant did not reoffend while on bail. The applicant argued that new evidence had come to light that would potentially affect the outcome of his appeal, and that this constituted a change in circumstances warranting a fresh bail application. The State of Western Australia opposed the application, arguing that the new evidence did not amount to a change in circumstances that would justify bail.

The court found that the new evidence presented by the applicant did not constitute a change in circumstances that would warrant a reconsideration of the bail decision. The court emphasised that for an application for bail to succeed, the applicant must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances since the original bail decision. The court held that the new evidence, while potentially relevant to the appeal, did not alter the underlying considerations that led to the original denial of bail. The applicant's risk of reoffending and the risk to the community remained unchanged. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established