R v Brown - [2018] ACTSC 116

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Brown
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 116
Hearing Dates:	20 April 2018; 27 April 2018
DecisionDate:	27 April 2018
ReasonsDate:	04 May 2018
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	The application for bail be dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to hear a bail application – Whether prior bail hearing was a bail review pursuant to s 42A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) - Court has no jurisdiction to hear the application
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT) ss 9D, 20, 20A, 20B, 22, 42A, 43A
Cases Cited:	In the matter of an Application for Bail by Luke Marsh [2013] ACTSC 16 In the matter of an Application for Bail by Roman Eiginson [2014] ACTSC 234 In the Matter of an Application for Bail by Serena Holmes [2011] ACTSC 187 In the matter of an Application for Bail by Shane William Sebbens [2014] ACTSC 281
Parties:	Rhys Liam Brown (Applicant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr H Jorgensen (Applicant) Ms M Kent / Ms S Naidu (Respondent)
Solicitors LegalAid ACT (Applicant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCC 78 of 2018

Loukas-Karlsson J:

Introduction

By way of an application and supporting affidavit dated 13 April 2018, the applicant, Rhys Brown seeks that bail be granted pursuant to section 43A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act).

The applicant was arrested on 31 July 2017, and charged with one count of forcible confinement, one count of minor theft, and one count of common assault. The Applicant was remanded in custody on 1 August 2017. The applicant was in breach of his Supreme Court Bail at the time of his arrest.

Since the applicant’s arrest, he has been sentenced in the Supreme Court by Penfold J to a term of imprisonment with respect to offences arising in 2012. That term of imprisonment was completed on 15 March 2018.

On 8 August 2017, in a hearing before Magistrate Boss, the charge of forcible confinement was withdrawn, and an additional charge of choke/suffocate was laid against him.

The family violence charges were listed for hearing before the Magistrates Court on 11 December 2017. On that day, the accused was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice between 4 August 2017 and 11 October 2017. The matter was adjourned, and all of the proceedings will be heard together on 8 May 2018.

The applicant is facing separate charges arising out of an incident at the Alexander Maconochie Centre on 10 December 2017, namely one count of assault and one count of possessing a prohibited thing.

The applicant has no proceedings currently before the Supreme Court. The matters he was charged with on 31 July 2017 are before the Magistrates Court.

Application for grant of bail

The applicant’s supporting affidavit submitted that the applicant has been refused bail on the following occasions since 31 July 2017:

· On 2 August 2017, bail was refused by Chief…

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 R v Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Brown [2018] ACTSC 116
Case: [2018] ACTSC 116
Decision Date: 27 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Brown was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The defendant, Brown, applied for bail in the Supreme Court. The application followed a decision by a magistrate denying bail. Brown sought to appeal the magistrate's decision by applying to the Supreme Court for bail. The central issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to hear Brown's bail application, given that the application followed a previous bail hearing conducted by a magistrate.

The court examined whether the prior bail hearing by the magistrate was a bail review under section 42A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT). Section 42A specifies the procedure and circumstances under which a court can review a bail decision made by a magistrate. The court found that the prior hearing did not constitute a bail review under section 42A. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application for bail.

The Supreme Court dismissed Brown's application for bail. The reasoning was based on the jurisdictional constraints imposed by section 42A, which did not permit the Supreme Court to entertain Brown's application for bail in the absence of a formal bail review process. The court's decision was unequivocal: it found no grounds for altering the magistrate's denial of bail. The application was dismissed, and Brown remained in custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for bail be dismissed.

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.