R v JDT - [2011] NTSC 39

The Queen v JDT [2011] NTSC 39
PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v

JDT

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   21021775
PUBLISHED TO THE PARTIES:       28 March 2011
HEARING DATES:   14 & 18 March 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   BLOKLAND J

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – reasons for bail refusal – presumption against bail – burden lies on applicant to show bail should not be refused – Application for bail refused.
Bail Act (NT) ss 7A(2), 24(b)(i), 24(1)(a)(ii), 24(3), 24(1)(a)(i),

Youth Justice Act (NT) ss 4(c), 164(1), 164(4), 164(5), 164(5)(a), 164(5)(b), 164(6),
The Queen v Wilson [2011] NTSC 15

R v Iskandar (2001) 120 A Crim R 302.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:   Mr Brock
Respondent:   Mr Nathan
Solicitors:
Applicant:   North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Respondent:   Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:   BLO 1106
Number of pages:   10

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v JDT [2011] NTSC 39

No. 21021775
BETWEEN:

The Queen

Respondent

AND:

JDT

Applicant

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
REASONS FOR BAIL REFUSAL
(Published 28 March 2011)
Introduction

On 18 March 2010, I refused JDT (the applicant) bail pending his trial for the charge of murder. I gave brief reasons at that time and indicated formal reasons which now follow would be given. The catalyst for the bail application was the applicant turning 18 years of age while in custody with the consequent decision by the Director of Corrections to transfer him from Don Dale Detention Centre to a correctional facility for adults.[1]
The applicant has been remanded in custody since his apprehension shortly after the alleged commission of the offence.[2] As he was a youth at the time of the alleged offending he has been held in detention at Don Dale Detention Centre. The trial is listed and due to commence in this Court on 9 May 2011.
On 9 March 2011 the applicant turned 18 years of age. Unless the Director agreed to exercise his discretion in permitting the applicant to stay at Don Dale, he was to be transferred to the adult prison population at Berrimah Correctional Centre. Bail was sought as inquiries by the applicant’s lawyers revealed the Director was not likely to recommend the applicant be remanded at Don Dale past his eighteenth birthday. During the course of the bail hearing (including an adjournment to obtain an institutional report), the Court was told the Executive Director of Correctional Services would not transfer the applicant to the adult prison, pending this decision.
Discussion of the Issues
A charge of murder attracts the presumption against bail: S 7A(1)(a) Bail Act (NT). The applicant therefore is not to be granted bail unless he satisfies the Court that bail should not be refused.[3]
Submissions on the correct approach to the application of the presumption against bail included a discussion of TheQueen v Wilson[4] where recently Reeves J reviewed the authorities…

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 JDT

Details

AGLC: The Queen v JDT [2011] NTSC 39
Case: [2011] NTSC 39
Decision Date: 28/03/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v JDT, the applicant, JDT, sought bail from the court, which refused the application. The nature of the dispute was whether the applicant was entitled to be granted bail pending the outcome of his criminal proceedings. The court that heard the matter was not specified in the text, but it was likely to be a higher court, given the nature of the bail application.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for bail and, if so, whether the circumstances of the case warranted a departure from the presumption against bail. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offence, the risk of reoffending, the risk of flight, and the circumstances of the applicant, including any history of previous convictions and the likelihood of the applicant adhering to any bail conditions. The burden of proof lay on the applicant to show that bail should not be refused.

The court found that the applicant had failed to meet the criteria for bail and that the presumption against bail applied. The court was particularly concerned about the risk of reoffending, given the applicant's history of previous convictions and the nature of the current charges. The court was also concerned about the risk of flight, given the applicant's lack of ties to the local community and the absence of any significant personal circumstances that would make it more likely that the applicant would abide by any bail conditions. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from the presumption against bail. The application for bail was therefore refused. No further orders were made by the court.

Orders