R v Rhys Wilkins - [2015] ACTSC 8

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Rhys Wilkins
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 8
Hearing Date(s):	9 December 2014, 7 January 2015
DecisionDate:	7 January 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	Rhys Wilkins be granted bail on the following conditions: 1. That he accept the supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, and comply with all reasonable directions of the person supervising him; 2. That he report forthwith to the intake officer of ACT Corrective Services, Eclipse House, London Circuit, Canberra City; 3. That he present himself, immediately after reporting to the intake officer as provided in condition 2, to Arcadia House, Mary Potter Circuit, Bruce ACT for admission by no later than 4:00 pm on 7 January 2015; 4. That he reside at Arcadia House, Mary Potter Circuit, Bruce ACT, and be present at that residence at all times and until completion of the Arcadia House Transition Program on 4 March 2015; 5. That, if he is not admitted to, or leaves, or is discharged from, or otherwise fails to complete the Arcadia House Transition Program at any time before 4 March 2015, he surrender himself immediately to the ACT Supreme Court or the City police station; 6. That he not consume intoxicating liquor or any illicit drugs, including cannabis; 7. That he provide samples of his breath, blood or urine for analysis as directed by the person supervising him; 8. That he provide a sample of his breath or oral fluid as directed by a police officer who has reasonable grounds for making such a direction; and 9. That he attend the ACT Supreme Court, at 9:30 am on 5 March 2015.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – Whether special or exceptional circumstances are present
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 9 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 603(7), 604 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B Criminal Code Regulations 2005 (ACT), Pt 1.1 of Sch 1, Item 44
Cases Cited:	Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 In the matter of an application for bail by Massey [2008] ACTSC 145 People v O’Callaghan (1966) IR 501 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Rhys Wilkins (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S McKenzie (Crown) Mr A Doig (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 224 of 2014 SCC 225 of 2014 SCC 305 of 2014 SCC 306 of 2014

Refshauge J:

Pre-trial detention is not a punishment, despite some common views in the community to the contrary. Indeed, the law of human rights makes it clear that deprivation of liberty for persons not convicted of offences could be punishment, as Justice Walsh opined in the People v O’Callaghan (1966) IR 501 at 516-17. Nevertheless, pre-trial detention is permissible if the strict conditions of the law are met. In this Territory, those conditions are set out in the Bail Act 1992 (ACT).

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 Rhys Wilkins

Details

AGLC: R v Rhys Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 8
Case: [2015] ACTSC 8
Decision Date: 7 January 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rhys Wilkins, the appellant sought bail from the ACT Supreme Court while facing criminal charges. The appellant was arrested and charged with various offences including drug supply and possession, theft, and breach of an apprehended violence order. The primary legal issue before the court was whether special or exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the grant of bail to the appellant. The court needed to weigh the risk of flight, the risk of offending while on bail, and the appellant's personal circumstances against the seriousness of the alleged offences.

The court considered several factors in its reasoning. Firstly, it noted that the appellant had no prior criminal history and had shown some cooperation with authorities. It also considered the appellant's employment, his ties to the community, and the support available to him through his family. The court further examined the appellant's prospects of success at trial, the length of the potential sentence, and the impact of incarceration on the appellant. Ultimately, the court found that the appellant's prospects of success at trial were not strong, and the risk of offending while on bail was low. The court also determined that the appellant's personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offences warranted the grant of bail.

The court granted the appellant bail on a number of conditions, including supervision, residence at a specified address, and prohibitions on consuming alcohol and illicit drugs. The court also required the appellant to attend court on a specified date. This decision demonstrates the court's willingness to consider the individual circumstances of the appellant in determining whether to grant bail.

Orders

Orders of the court

Rhys Wilkins be granted bail on the following conditions:

1. That he accept the supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, and comply with all reasonable directions of the person supervising him;

2. That he report forthwith to the intake officer of ACT Corrective Services, Eclipse House, London Circuit, Canberra City;

3. That he present himself, immediately after reporting to the intake officer as provided in condition 2, to Arcadia House, Mary Potter Circuit, Bruce ACT for admission by no later than 4:00 pm on 7 January 2015;

4. That he reside at Arcadia House, Mary Potter Circuit, Bruce ACT, and be present at that residence at all times and until completion of the Arcadia House Transition Program on 4 March 2015;

5. That, if he is not admitted to, or leaves, or is discharged from, or otherwise fails to complete the Arcadia House Transition Program at any time before 4 March 2015, he surrender himself immediately to the ACT Supreme Court or the City police station;

6. That he not consume intoxicating liquor or any illicit drugs, including cannabis;

7. That he provide samples of his breath, blood or urine for analysis as directed by the person supervising him;

8. That he provide a sample of his breath or oral fluid as directed by a police officer who has reasonable grounds for making such a direction; and

9. That he attend the ACT Supreme Court, at 9:30 am on 5 March 2015.

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.