Police v Brown - [2014] QMC 1

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Brown [2014] QMC 1

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

JARROD KEVIN ANTHONY BROWN

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG252101/13(6)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Charge - Application for Bail

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 January 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 January 2014

MAGISTRATE:

The Honourable Judge Carmody AO

ORDER:

Bail refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Bail – Participant in a criminal organisation – Whether cause is shown that continuing pre-trial detention is justified – Whether defendant is an unacceptable risk of reoffending

Bail Act 1980, s 8, s 15, s 16

COUNSEL:

JA Wooldridge for the prosecution

PL Hanlon for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution

ATSILS for the defendant

This is a contested application for bail by an alleged participant in a declared criminal organisation. Section 16(3A) of the Bail Act 1980 has the effect of deeming current or past participants in criminal organisations as prima facie bail risks and presumes a continuing pre-trail detention is justified unless the applicant proves to the contrary. The statutory presumption in favour of depriving an alleged participant in a criminal organisation of liberty pending trial is not easily displaced. See R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450 at 473, Sica v DPP (Queensland) (2010) QCA 18 at 52 and Lacey v The Attorney-General for Queensland (2009) QCA 274 at paragraph 54.

The clear legislative intention is that despite the general right to personal liberty and the common law presumption of innocence alleged criminal participants should ordinarily be refused bail. This applies regardless of the nature and seriousness of the charge or other common bail considerations, such as personal or financial hardship and family distress and the prejudice of delay and the inconvenience of incarceration. This is because of the underlying assumption that participants will continue to offend, impose an unacceptable risk to community safety, order and welfare if they are released.

The public policy objectives of the current bail laws relating to participants in criminal organisations will normally be met by detention rather than release in the absence of cogent and compelling evidence that apparent or presumed risks to the community can be adequately met by conditional liberty.

Evidence of disassociation by an applicant is relevant but not decisive of the question whether continuing confinement is warranted or not.

Arguably, pre-trial detention of an alleged participant in a criminal organisation will only be unjustified to the extent that it exceeds what is reasonably necessary in all the circumstances to achieve the stated objects of the bail laws; that is, to prevent repeat offending and protect the community from unacceptable risks of harm posed by criminal groups and their associates.

The applicant contends that continuing custody is unjustified in his case because: (a) although he once was he no longer is a member of the Bandidos Motorcycle Gang (b) the relevant offences with which he is currently charged are relatively minor and unlikely…

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 Police v Brown

Details

AGLC: Police v Brown [2014] QMC 1
Case: [2014] QMC 1
Decision Date: 14 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the defendant, Brown, who was facing charges related to his involvement in a criminal organisation. Brown applied for bail, but the police opposed his application, arguing that he posed a significant risk of reoffending if released. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had demonstrated a cause for Brown's continued detention prior to his trial. Specifically, the court had to determine if Brown was an unacceptable risk of reoffending and whether this risk justified his continued detention.

The court considered several factors in reaching its decision. It examined the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the defendant's criminal history, and any evidence suggesting a likelihood of reoffending. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Brown had a significant history of involvement in organised criminal activities and had shown no inclination to cease such activities. The court also noted the potential danger Brown posed to the community if released, given his previous conduct and the serious nature of the charges against him. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that Brown was an unacceptable risk of reoffending and that there was a cause shown for his continued detention.

The Supreme Court of Queensland, therefore, refused Brown's application for bail. The court held that the risk of Brown reoffending if released was too high, and his continued detention was necessary to protect the community and ensure he would attend his trial. The final orders of the court were that bail was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail 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.

CITATION:	Police v Brown [2014] QMC 1
PARTIES:	POLICE (prosecution) v JARROD KEVIN ANTHONY BROWN (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG252101/13(6)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Charge - Application for Bail
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 January 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 January 2014
MAGISTRATE:	The Honourable Judge Carmody AO
ORDER:	Bail refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Bail – Participant in a criminal organisation – Whether cause is shown that continuing pre-trial detention is justified – Whether defendant is an unacceptable risk of reoffending Bail Act 1980, s 8, s 15, s 16
COUNSEL:	JA Wooldridge for the prosecution PL Hanlon for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution ATSILS for the defendant