R v Chatfield

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Chatfield

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 325

Hearing Date:

25 October 2017

DecisionDate:

26 October 2017

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

The application for bail is dismissed.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – change in previous bail applications – threshold test in s 20C of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) to show change in circumstances or fresh evidence or information – what is significant to meet threshold test – provision of brief of evidence – committal for trial – s 20C threshold requirement not met – bail not granted – application dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 20B(a), 20C, 20C(1)(a), 20C(2), 43A

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 23, 27(3)(d)

Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), ss 43(1)(a)(iii), 221(1)(b)

Cases Cited:

Re an application for bail by Allen [2009] ACTSC 64

Re an application for bail by Anderson [2011] ACTSC 121

Re an application in relation to the grant of bail to Lokvicic [2012] ACTSC 37

Re an application for bail by Massey (No. 2) [2009] ACTSC 70

Re an application for bail by Merritt [2009] ACTSC 56

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Wayne Chatfield (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

M Kent (Crown)

J Purnell SC (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Sharman Robertson (Accused)

File Numbers:

SCC 272 of 2017

SCC 275 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

1. Wayne Chatfield has applied for bail.  He is charged with:

(a)unlawfully discharging a firearm so as to cause another person reasonable apprehension of their safety, contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT);

(b)possessing a firearm when not authorised by a license or permit or otherwise under the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), contrary to s 43(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act;

(c)recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm on Luke Brown contrary to s 23 of the Crimes Act; and

(d)discharging a firearm in a public place contrary to s 221(1)(b) of the Firearms Act.

1. The applicant has previously made two unsuccessful bail applications of the ACT Magistrates Court on 29 August 2017 and 15 September 2017.  The applicant was committed for trial on 3 October 2017.

1. The application for bail is empowered by s 20B(a) of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) because the proceedings are now before the ACT Supreme Court. Section 20C(1)(a) provides a constraint upon the power of the Supreme Court to grant bail. In the present case, because there were two previous bail applications made in the Magistrates Court when the proceedings were before that Court, s 20C(2) applies. That subsection provides:

The court may only consider a further application for bail (other than a bail review application) by the person in the proceeding if the court is satisfied—

(a) that since the last application for bail there has been a change in circumstances relevant

to the granting of bail; or

(b) that there is fresh evidence or information of relevance to the granting of bail that was unavailable at the last application for…