R v Quaid - [2009] WASC 202

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: R -v- QUAID [2009] WASC 202

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 13 JULY 2009

DELIVERED : 22 JULY 2009

FILE NO/S: INS 20 of 2009

MATTER :Section 14 of the Bail Act 1982

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Prosecution
AND
FABIAN QUAID
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Bail - Application for bail pending trial - Serious offence - Exceptional circumstances - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14, sch 1
Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.5(1), s 302.2(1)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution : Mr D W L Renton
Accused: Mr L M Levy SC

Solicitors:

Prosecution : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Accused: Alana Padmanabham

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

Jemielita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362
Mercanti v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 254
Rauch v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASC 241
Sabau v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 183; (2007) 173 A Crim R 401
The State of Western Australia v Sturgeon [2005] WASC 256, (2005)158 A Crim R 34
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

LE MIERE J:

Introduction

The applicant applies under s 14 of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) (the Act) for release on bail pending trial in this court on an indictment by which the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions informs the court that between 1 July 2007 and 19 May 2008 at Perth and elsewhere in Australia, Rade Ljuboja, Dejan Medan, Dimitrios Papadimitriou and the applicant conspired together with Vaso Ulic and others to traffic in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, MDMA, contrary to s 11.5(1) and s 302.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
The applicant was arrested in Sydney on 21 May 2008. He was extradited to Perth and has been continuously in custody since then. On 18 May 2008, three days before his arrest in Sydney, the applicant was involved in a traffic crash on Stirling Highway, Mosman Park, Western Australia. On or about 23 October 2008 he was charged with two separate offences of dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm under s 59A(a)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). On 20 February 2009 the applicant pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment on each count. Both sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The applicant became eligible for administrative parole on or about 6 July 2009. The trial of the applicant and his co‑accused is expected to commence in November 2009.

Applicant's antecedents

The applicant is 32 years old. He is of Persian descent and was born in India. His birth name was Irani. His father adopted the name Quaid to avoid association with Iran. The family moved to Australia in 1983 and eventually settled in Perth. The applicant completed his high school education in Perth. He is an Australian citizen and holds an Australian passport in the name of Quaid. The applicant…

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 Quaid

Details

AGLC: R v Quaid [2009] WASC 202
Case: [2009] WASC 202
Decision Date: 22 JULY 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Quaid involves a defendant who applied for bail pending trial for a serious offence. The matter was heard in the higher court. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant was eligible for bail, given the gravity of the charges and the need to balance this with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The court had to consider the nature of the alleged offence, the defendant's history, and any exceptional circumstances that might warrant granting bail.

The court meticulously examined the seriousness of the offence, the potential impact on the community if the defendant were released, and the likelihood of the defendant appearing for trial if granted bail. It assessed the defendant's background, including any previous convictions or history of absconding. The court also evaluated whether there were exceptional circumstances that would justify granting bail, such as the defendant's ties to the community, support from family or friends, and the impact of incarceration on dependents.

After thorough deliberation, the court found that the nature of the offence and the risk factors outweighed any potential exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that the defendant did not meet the criteria for bail. The application was therefore dismissed, and the defendant was required to remain in custody pending the outcome of the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.