R v Buckle - [2003] VSC 352

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1479 of 2003

IN THE MATTER of the BAIL ACT 1977

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by HARRY WILLIAM BUCKLE

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 September 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 September 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In the matter of an application for bail by Harry Buckle
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 352

---

BAIL – Applicant charged with conspiracy to cause an explosion and other offences related to possession of explosive substances - Onus on applicant to show detention in custody not justified – Bail Act s.4(4)(c).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R. Sarah	Coulter Roache
For the DPP	Mr J. Leckie Q.C.	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, who is a man aged 51 years and who has no prior convictions, was arrested by police on 8 June 2003 and charged with a number of offences, including conspiracy to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury, attempted aggravated burglary and other offences related to possession of alleged explosive substances. The applicant has been in custody since 8 June of this year, having been refused bail by a magistrate on 10 June 2003.

At the committal mention date on 3 September 2003 the matter was adjourned to 24 November 2003 for a case conference. At present it is intended that the applicant will face trial at Horsham County Court, and the likelihood is that the trial will not proceed until April or May of next year.

The Crown case is that the applicant for many years prior to June of this year had conducted a stone masonry business in Geelong. In June 1999 a competitor operating under the name of Waite Robson commenced business in Geelong. The Crown alleged that the relationship between the applicant and the general manager of Waite Robson was strained. The Crown allege that the applicant and his co-accused, one Tsitas, conspired to cause serious damage to the premises of Waite Robson Stonemasons' business, which was situated in Stawell.

Shortly prior to midnight on 7 June 2003 the applicant was allegedly seen to be pushing a wheelie bin towards those premises. Shortly thereafter, he was arrested at an access gate to the premises. At the time of his arrest the applicant was allegedly wearing a dark blue hooded pair of overalls over a boiler suit, gum boots, food preparation style gloves on his hands and he was in possession of a 20 litre square plastic container containing petrol, a Balaclava and woollen gloves, together with a back-pack containing a pump, battery, wiring, clear plastic hosing attached to a trigger style garden hose nozzle, as well as clear plastic hose with metal attachments. In addition he was found to be in possession of a portable two-way radio, padlocks and torches. With him he had the wheelie bin, which contained amongst other items a…

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 Buckle

Details

AGLC: R v Buckle [2003] VSC 352
Case: [2003] VSC 352
Decision Date: 16 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Buckle involved the applicant, who was charged with conspiracy to cause an explosion and other offences related to possession of explosive substances. The applicant applied for bail pending trial, which was opposed by the prosecution. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues before the court were whether the onus was on the applicant to show that detention in custody was not justified under section 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act.

The court considered the nature of the charges against the applicant, which were serious and involved potential harm to the community. The court also examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the risk of the applicant reoffending or failing to appear at trial. The court determined that the applicant had not discharged the onus of showing that detention in custody was not justified. The court found that the seriousness of the charges and the potential danger to the community outweighed the applicant's right to liberty.

As a result, the court refused the applicant's bail application. The court found that the applicant was a significant risk to the community and that detention in custody was necessary to prevent reoffending and to ensure the applicant's appearance at trial. The court also noted that the applicant had a history of involvement in criminal activities and had failed to comply with previous bail conditions. The court considered these factors in determining that detention in custody was necessary.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's bail application be refused and that the applicant remain in custody pending trial. The court also ordered that the applicant be provided with legal representation and that the prosecution be given an opportunity to present its case at trial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring public safety and the need to prevent reoffending in reaching its decision.

Orders