R -v- ROBERTSON [2001] WASC 120

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 120
Case No:	INS:173/2000	Heard:	8 MAY 2001
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	8/05/01
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail refused
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN DAVID MCGREGOR ROBERTSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Bail Serious offence Whether exceptional circumstances shown Risk of non-attendance or further offences Trial imminent
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), Schedule 1, Part C
Case References:	WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : R -v- ROBERTSON [2001] WASC 120 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 8 MAY 2001 DELIVERED : 8 MAY 2001 FILE NO/S : INS 173 of 2000 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

AND

DAVID MCGREGOR ROBERTSON

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Bail - Serious offence - Whether exceptional circumstances shown - Risk of non-attendance or further offences - Trial imminent

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), Schedule 1, Part C

Result:

Bail refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Crown : Ms C Barbagallo

Accused : Mr D C Manera

Solicitors:

Crown : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Accused : Mr D C Manera

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This applicant appears before me today on an indictment dated 1 November 2000 containing a number of counts. He appeared before Scott J on 1 November 2000 and pleaded not guilty to those counts on the indictment, they being one count of wilful damage, one of burglary with intent to commit an offence and whilst armed with a shotgun and pistol and in company, and one armed robbery in company, all allegedly committed on 6 July 2000.

2 He was remanded to this court for a status conference on 11 December 2000. On that date he appeared before Wallwork J and a 5-day trial was set down for 14 May 2001. At that time an application for bail on behalf of the accused was foreshadowed. That was in due course made by application dated and filed 23 March 2001. The ground upon which bail was sought by that application was that the co-accused had been granted bail.

3 The application was supported by an affidavit from David Charles Manera, the applicant's counsel, dated and filed 23 March 2001. In that affidavit Mr Manera deposes to a number of relevant circumstances, including that the applicant is 43 years of age and was born in Western Australia, he is married, with twins aged 5 years and that the applicant had a daughter who was 14 years of age when she was murdered. He is self-employed, if not in custody of course, and it is said that if released to bail would reside at the home of his business partner.

4 The statement of material facts in relation to the charges presently before the court indicates that at about 5.45 am on Thursday, 6 July…

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 Lyon

Details

AGLC: R v Lyon [2001] WASC 120
Case: [2001] WASC 120
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the case of The Queen v Robertson involves the applicant, David McGregor Robertson, seeking bail in relation to serious criminal charges. Robertson was indicted on counts of wilful damage, burglary with intent to commit an offence while armed, and armed robbery in company, all of which were alleged to have occurred on 6 July 2000. He pleaded not guilty to these charges. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting bail to Robertson, given the seriousness of the charges and the risk he posed if released. The court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the offences, Robertson's criminal history, his potential risk of non-attendance or further offences, and whether his medical conditions required treatment more readily available outside custody.

Robertson's application for bail was supported by an affidavit from his counsel, which highlighted his health conditions and the treatment he requires. However, the court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that Robertson's treatment could not be provided while in custody. The court also reviewed Robertson's extensive criminal history, which included numerous serious offences, and a psychiatrist's report indicating that Robertson posed a risk for reoffending. The psychiatrist's report noted Robertson's difficulty in coping with the grief of his daughter's murder and his potential for violence, particularly if he resorted to illicit drugs. Given the imminent trial date and the serious nature of the charges, the court found that Robertson had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying bail. The court also considered the strong opposition from the Crown and the risk Robertson posed if released. Consequently, the application for bail was refused.

Orders