PQ v The Queen - [2021] NSWSC 830

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: PQ v R [2021] NSWSC 830
Hearing dates: 23 June 2021
Date of orders: 08 June 2021
Decision date: 08 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Application for bail dismissed

Catchwords:
CRIME – bail – offence of taking and detaining – assessment of bail concerns – unacceptable risk test – whether risk of reoffending – whether risk of fleeing jurisdiction – very strong crown case – concern of not complying with bail conditions – presence of unacceptable risk – bail refused

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013
Courts Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010
Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:
JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
PQ (Applicant)
Representation: Counsel:
A Chauvet (Crown)
N Mikhaiel (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2021/138552
Publication restriction: Order that the names of the applicant, her co‑accused, the victim of the offence and family members of the victim, the events the subject of this application and any material tending to identify them, be suppressed

Judgment

On 2 December 2020, the applicant, to whom the pseudonym PQ has been given, was arrested and charged with an offence contrary s 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 of taking and detaining a person, in company, with intent to obtain an advantage. The offence was said to have been committed on the afternoon of 1 December 2020. The detention continued for some days.
On 17 May 2021, PQ made an application pursuant to s 8 of the Bail Act 2013 (“the Act”) to be released on bail.
The Crown opposed that application. It was heard on 23 June 2021. The Court reserved its decision on that day.

Non-Publication Order

It will be necessary in this judgment to consider the nature and strength of the Crown case against the applicant. That is to be done by reference to the contents of the Crown case statement and various other documents. Some of that material may not ultimately be admitted in evidence if the matter proceeds to a contested trial.
In order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and in order to ensure a fair trial of the applicant, the Court must make a suppression order pursuant to s 8 of the Courts Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010. In so doing, I take into account that a primary objective in the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice. However, in an interlocutory application such as this one, it is also important to take steps to ensure that a fair trial will take place.
Accordingly, the Court has ordered that the names of the applicant, her co‑accused, the victim of the offence (who is her child) and family members of the child, and any material tending to identify them, be suppressed. Such order is made until the conclusion of the trial of the applicant, or further order of the court, whichever first occurs.

Background of the…

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 PQ v The Queen

Details

AGLC: PQ v The Queen [2021] NSWSC 830
Case: [2021] NSWSC 830
Decision Date: 08 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of PQ v The Queen involved the appellant, PQ, who was charged with an offence of taking and detaining. The dispute centred on whether PQ was eligible for bail. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial authority in the country. The appellant sought bail, arguing that the concerns raised by the prosecution did not justify the denial of bail. The Crown, represented by the Queen, opposed the bail application, asserting that PQ posed unacceptable risks to the community if released on bail.

The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant's release on bail would result in an unacceptable risk to the community. Specifically, the court had to consider the risk of PQ reoffending and the risk of PQ fleeing the jurisdiction. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the strength of the prosecution's case and whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that PQ would not comply with bail conditions. The Crown presented a strong case, highlighting PQ's criminal history and the seriousness of the alleged offence.

The court assessed the various factors and concluded that there was a significant risk that PQ would reoffend if released on bail. The very strong case against PQ, combined with concerns about his potential non-compliance with bail conditions, led the court to find that the risk of reoffending was unacceptable. Furthermore, the court determined that there was a substantial risk that PQ might attempt to flee the jurisdiction. Weighing these factors against the principles of bail, the court found that the unacceptable risk test was satisfied, and therefore, the appeal against the denial of bail was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the strong evidence against PQ and the identified risks associated with his release on bail.

Orders