R v Bryers - [2022] NSWSC 1284

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bryers [2022] NSWSC 1284
Hearing dates: 17 June 2022
Date of orders: 17 June 2022
Decision date: 17 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
The Court certifies to the Attorney General for the Commonwealth that Mark Ronald Bryers is without adequate means to provide defence for himself with the respect to the charges upon which he was arraigned on 11 April 2022 in this Court. It is desirable in the interests of justice, that appointment of counsel in his defence should be made.

Catchwords:
CRIME – application under s 69(3) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – whether the applicant is without adequate means to provide defence for himself – assessment made on prima facie material – whether it is desirable in the interests of justice that such an appointment should be made – Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
DietrichvTheQueen (1992) 177 CLR 292

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina
Mark Ronald Bryers
Representation:
Counsel:
P McEniery – Crown
N/A
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Commonwealth DPP
Mark Bryers – self represented

File Number(s): 2020/210541

Judgment [revised]

Mark Ronald Bryers is being prosecuted in this Court on an indictment filed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. He is charged jointly with several others on the following counts:

(1) Between about 1 July 2018 and about 21 July 2020 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, the Gold Coast in the State of Queensland and elsewhere [he and other accused] did conspire with each other and divers others with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to a third person, namely, the Commonwealth.
(2) Between about 1 July 2018 and about 21 July 2020 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and the Gold Coast in the State of Queensland and elsewhere [he and other accused] did conspire with each other and divers others to deal with the money of a value of $1 million or more believing it to be proceeds of crime.

The first count is laid under s 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code (Cth) and the second count is laid under ss 11.5(1) and 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr Bryers was arraigned on those counts before me on 11 April 2022 and pleaded not guilty. Mr Bryers is unrepresented as he has been since he was first charged in 2020.
I have fixed the trial to commence on 23 January 2023. The Crown estimates it will occupy between six and seven months. That estimate was given on 4 March this year during a directions hearing. I have conducted interlocutory hearings and made directions to advance the trial preparation and to facilitate discussions between the Crown and the accused for the purpose of defining the likely trial duration more accurately. Six to seven months remains the current estimate.

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 Bryers

Details

AGLC: R v Bryers [2022] NSWSC 1284
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1284
Decision Date: 17 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bryers involved the applicant, Bryers, seeking a legal aid order for the purpose of engaging legal representation in criminal proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute was whether Bryers met the criteria for receiving legal aid, specifically regarding his financial capacity to fund his own legal defence and whether it was just and convenient for legal aid to be provided.

The court was required to decide if Bryers was without adequate means to provide for his own legal defence. Additionally, it needed to determine if it was desirable in the interests of justice to appoint a lawyer under section 69(3) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). These issues were assessed based on the prima facie material presented and the principles set out in Dietrich v The Queen.

The court conducted a preliminary assessment of the applicant's financial situation and the necessity of legal representation for a fair trial. It considered the balance between the applicant's financial circumstances and the need for legal aid to ensure a just outcome. The court found that the applicant did not possess adequate means to engage legal representation and that it was in the interests of justice to appoint a lawyer. The application for legal aid was thus granted in accordance with the statutory framework and the established judicial precedent.

Orders