R v Charles - [2016] ACTSC 177

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004 (ACT)

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Charles
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 177
Hearing Date:	6 February 2014
DecisionDate:	22 July 2016
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. It be declared that the Magistrates Court erred in finding on 14 November 2013 that Stanley Dwayne Charles, having been arrested under s 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), had to apply for bail. 2. It be declared that, on the proper construction of s 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), when Stanley Dwayne Charles appeared in the Magistrates Court on 14 November 2013, the Court had to determine whether he had breached any of his conditions of bail and, if so, whether to accede to any application by the prosecution to revoke his bail, make any other bail order or continue his bail.
Catchwords:	BAIL – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – s 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) – arrested – suspected breach of bail conditions – arrest does not automatically revoke bail – appearance in court after arrest for breach of bail does not automatically revoke bail – right to liberty – revocation of bail cannot be implied – appearance in court after arrest will justify application to revoke bail – application to revoke bail does not constitute application for bail – s 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) not applicable
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 5, 6, 6(3), 9D, 17, 19, 19(1)(b), 22, 23, 23A, 28, 33, 41, 42, 42A, 49, 49(1), 49(2), 56A, 56A(4)(a), 56A(4)(b), 57AA, Pt 4 Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 77, 78, 92 Bail Act 1985 (SA), s 18 Bail Act 1994 (Tas), s 26 Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s 24 Bail Act 1982 (WA), ss 54, 55 Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), s 3A Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 8, 33, 54, 57 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 16 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 12 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 4 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 18, 30 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 42, 64
Cases Cited:	Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562 Beljajev v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Appeal Division, Young CJ, Crockett and Ashley JJ, 1487 Blyth v Appeals Committee of Lancaster [1944] 1 All ER 587 Byrne v Mingay (2014) 242 A Crim R 9 Dainer v Foster; Ex parte Tange (1984) 14 A Crim R 327 Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 92 FCR 168 OH v Driessen [2015] ACTSC 148 R v Celeski [2016] ACTSC 140 R v Harborne (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, Grove and Newman JJ, 60229/94, 12 October 1994) R v Light [1954] VLR 152 R v McGrail [2016] ACTSC 142 R v Peehi (1997) 41 NSWLR 476 R v Pett (1957) 75 WN (NSW) 434 R v Spilsbury [1898] 2 QB 615 R v Welch (2009) 166 ACTR 32

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 [2016] ACTSC 177
Case: [2016] ACTSC 177
Decision Date: 22 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Charles involved Stanley Dwayne Charles, who was arrested and subsequently appeared in the Magistrates Court on charges related to a suspected breach of his bail conditions. The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation of section 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), which governs the circumstances under which an arrested person must apply for bail. The case specifically examined whether the arrest of an individual who is already on bail automatically revokes their bail or necessitates an application for bail.

The court had to determine whether the arrest of Charles under section 56A automatically revoked his bail and if his appearance in court following the arrest necessitated him to apply for bail. The court found that neither the arrest nor the appearance in court automatically revoked the bail or required an application for bail. Rather, the court's role upon the appearance of an arrested person on bail is to assess whether there has been a breach of bail conditions and to decide on the appropriate course of action, which may include revoking bail, making alternative bail orders, or continuing the existing bail.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the Magistrates Court had erred in its interpretation of section 56A. The court held that the arrest of an individual on bail does not automatically revoke their bail, nor does their subsequent court appearance require them to apply for bail. Instead, the court must evaluate whether there has been a breach of bail conditions and decide whether to revoke the bail, issue new bail conditions, or maintain the existing bail. Consequently, the court ordered that it be declared that the Magistrates Court's finding on 14 November 2013 was incorrect, and clarified the obligations of the court upon the appearance of an arrested person on bail.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It be declared that the Magistrates Court erred in finding on 14 November 2013 that Stanley Dwayne Charles, having been arrested under s 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), had to apply for bail.

2. It be declared that, on the proper construction of s 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), when Stanley Dwayne Charles appeared in the Magistrates Court on 14 November 2013, the Court had to determine whether he had breached any of his conditions of bail and, if so, whether to accede to any application by the prosecution to revoke his bail, make any other bail order or continue his bail.

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.