R v Charles - [2017] ACTCA 35

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	R v Charles
Citation:	[2017] ACTCA 35
Hearing Date:	10 November 2016
DecisionDate:	18 August 2017
Before:	Penfold, Elkaim and North JJ
Decision:	(i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The Court notes that notwithstanding the absence of relevance to the respondent, the Declarations made by Refshauge J on 22 July 2016 reflect a correct interpretation of s 56A of the Bail Act1992 (ACT).
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCDEURE – Appeal from Supreme Court – Crown appeal – interpretation of s 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT)
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 6, 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9F, 19, 33, 49(1), 56A Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act2005 (ACT), s 54
Parties:	The Queen (Appellant) Stanley Charles (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J White SC (Appellant) Mr J Stewart (Respondent)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) Aboriginal Legal Service (Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 31 of 2016
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Refshauge J Date of Decision: 22 July 2016 Case Title: R v Charles Citation: [2016] ACTSC 177

PENFOLD J:

Introduction

I have had the opportunity to read in draft the judgment of Elkaim and North JJ, and gratefully adopt their Honours’ description of the background to the case.

I agree with their Honours that Refshauge J’s declarations reflect a correct interpretation of s 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) in the case before his Honour. In relation to the second declaration, I would add the comments at [22] to [24] below,

Section 56A is as follows:

56AArrest without warrant of person on bail
(1)This section applies if a person has been granted bail in the ACT, a State or another Territory.
(2)A police officer may arrest the person without warrant if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person—
(a) has failed to comply with a bail condition; or
(b) will not comply with a bail condition.

(3)The police officer must bring the person before a court as soon as practicable.
(4)The court may—
(a)for a person granted bail in the ACT—exercise the same powers in relation to bail as it has in relation to any other accused person in custody; or
(b)for a person granted bail in a State or another Territory—
(i)      release the person unconditionally; or
(ii)      grant the person bail subject to the conditions that the court considers appropriate; or
(iii)     remand the person in custody for a reasonable time while a warrant for the person’s arrest is obtained from the State or other Territory.

(5)A release mentioned in subsection (4) (b) (i) does not affect the grant of bail in the State or other Territory.

The arguments made by the appellant are, in general terms, that s 56A must be read as providing that an arrest under that section automatically revokes bail:

(a)because s 6 is expressed to be subject to s 56A; and
(b)because s 56A…

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 Charles

Details

AGLC: R v Charles [2017] ACTCA 35
Case: [2017] ACTCA 35
Decision Date: 18 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned a Crown appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appeal was brought by the Crown against the respondent, Charles.

The central legal issue before the Court was the interpretation of section 56A of the *Bail Act 1992* (ACT). This section pertains to the circumstances under which a court may make declarations regarding bail.

The Court, comprising Penfold, Elkaim and North JJ, dismissed the Crown's appeal. While noting that the declarations made by Refshauge J on 22 July 2016 were not relevant to the respondent, the Court affirmed that these declarations represented a correct interpretation of section 56A of the *Bail Act 1992* (ACT).

Orders

Orders of the court

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The Court notes that notwithstanding the absence of relevance to the respondent, the Declarations made by Refshauge J on 22 July 2016 reflect a correct interpretation of s 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT).

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.