R v Rechichi - [1999] WASC 73

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: R -v- RECHICHI [1999] WASC 73

CORAM: SCOTT J

HEARD: 18 JUNE 1999

DELIVERED : 24 JUNE 1999

FILE NO/S: IND 186 of 1998

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Crown
AND
RAFFAELE RECHICHI
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Bail application pending trial - Prior bail application refused - Consideration of principles to further invoke jurisdiction - No change in circumstances - No exceptional circumstances

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 s14

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Crown : Mr M Mischin
Accused : Mr A O Karstaedt

Solicitors:

Crown : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused : Kevin Penkin & Assoc

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

Alexopolous v The Queen, unreported; SCt of Vic; 23 February 1998; BC9800603
Marotta v The Queen [1999] HCA 4
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

SCOTT J: On 18 June 1999, the accused applied for bail pending trial. The accused's trial is scheduled for hearing in the Supreme Court in the October sessions with a voir dire hearing scheduled for the September sessions.
The accused has been in custody since February 26, 1998 when he was taken into custody on a charge in similar terms to that which he now faces on indictment. A preliminary hearing on those charges commenced on 29 June 1998 and the accused was committed for trial. The trial was initially scheduled for February 1999 and was later adjourned until April 1999 and again until October 1999. Each of those adjournments was at the request of the accused or his counsel and I will return later to the reasons for those adjournments.
The accused applied for bail on 21 October 1998. The application was heard by Miller J. On that occasion Miller J heard evidence from two psychiatrists, the first being Peter John Shannon, who was called on behalf of the accused, and the second, Ananth Subrahmanyam Pullela. There was a dispute between the psychiatrists as to the degree of danger represented by the accused. Dr Pullela, in his evidence, said to Miller J:
"Mr Rechichi, in my view, fits into a classic description of a major personality disorder; that is, an anti-social/paranoid cluster with an extreme degree of psychopathic deviancy."
Dr Pullela went on to say that the accused had major deficits in all four components and in particular had a paranoid/anti-social cluster. In conclusion, Dr Pullela indicated that the accused has "a reckless disregard for the safety of others by making the serious threats to kill".
That evidence was contrary to the evidence of Dr Shannon, who testified that "I could not find any particular evidence of Mr Rechichi seeking to be a danger to others."
Miller J had detailed evidence placed before him and the assistance of counsel, both for the accused and for the Crown, and considered the evidence and submissions. In his conclusions, Miller J said:
"I refer to the matter set out in Pt C cl…

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 Rechichi

Details

AGLC: R v Rechichi [1999] WASC 73
Case: [1999] WASC 73
Decision Date: 24 JUNE 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Rechichi, the High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the applicability of the principles that govern the exercise of jurisdiction in the case of a second application for bail. The applicant, who had previously been denied bail, sought to have the decision reconsidered under the principles of further invocation of jurisdiction. The legal issues central to the case revolved around the criteria for re-evaluating a bail decision when an initial application had been refused, and whether a change in circumstances or exceptional circumstances needed to be demonstrated for the court to consider the matter again.

The Court examined the principles established in previous cases which set out that when a court exercises its discretion to refuse bail, it does so within the scope of its jurisdiction. The principles further articulate that unless there is a change in circumstances or exceptional circumstances, a re-examination of the bail decision is not warranted. In this instance, the Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any change in circumstances since the initial bail decision nor had they presented any exceptional circumstances that would justify a reconsideration of the bail matter. Consequently, the Court held that the principles for further invocation of jurisdiction did not apply, and the application for bail was dismissed.

The Court's decision underscores the importance of the principles guiding the exercise of jurisdiction in bail applications. It reinforces the need for applicants to substantiate any claim for reconsideration with evidence of significant changes in circumstances or exceptional conditions. The case reaffirms the Court's stance on the stringent criteria required for a second bail application to be entertained, ensuring that the principles are applied consistently and fairly.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for bail was dismissed, and no further application for bail would be considered without a demonstration of changed circumstances or exceptional circumstances. The decision remains a significant reference for practitioners dealing with bail applications, highlighting the importance of clear and compelling evidence to invoke the jurisdiction of the court in such matters.

Orders