R -v- SINGH [2013] WASC 478

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 478
Case No:	MBA:34/2013	Heard:	20 NOVEMBER 2013
Coram:	SIMMONDS J	Delivered:	21/11/13
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail revoked
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN HARJEET SINGH
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Bail Application for revocation of bail under Bail Act 1982 (WA) s 14(1)(b) Proper approach to be adopted to application for such revocation Relevance of approach to grant or refusal of bail under Bail Act s 14(1)(a) Answers to questions in sch 1 pt C cl 1(a)(i) and (iv) read with cl 3, in cl 1(g) and in cl 1(e) Answer to any other questions considered relevant from cl 1 Exercise of discretion after mandatory questions answered
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b), s 14(2)(b), s 22, s 54, s 55(1), sch 1 pt C cl 1(a), sch 1 pt C cl 1(e), sch 1 pt C cl 1(g), sch 1 pt C cl 3 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.1, s 11.5, s 302.3, s 307.2
Case References:	Margjini v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 193 Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 99; (2011) 42 WAR 99 Quaid v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 228 R v Ng [2012] WASCA 180 R v Yanko [2001] WASC 1 Re York Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd (in liq) (2007) 162 FCR 358; (2007) 240 ALR 567 Rock v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 295 Tran v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASC 480 Tulloh v The Queen [2004] WASCA 169

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : R -v- SINGH [2013] WASC 478 CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 20 NOVEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 21 NOVEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : MBA 34 of 2013 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Applicant

AND

HARJEET SINGH

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Bail - Application for revocation of bail under Bail Act 1982 (WA) s 14(1)(b) - Proper approach to be adopted to application for such revocation - Relevance of approach to grant or refusal of bail under Bail Act s 14(1)(a) - Answers to questions in sch 1 pt C cl 1(a)(i) and (iv) read with cl 3, in cl 1(g) and in cl 1(e) - Answer to any other questions considered relevant from cl 1 - Exercise of discretion after mandatory questions answered

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b), s 14(2)(b), s 22, s 54, s 55(1), sch 1 pt C cl 1(a), sch 1 pt C cl 1(e), sch 1 pt C cl 1(g), sch 1 pt C cl 3

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.1, s 11.5, s 302.3, s 307.2

Result:

Bail revoked

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr A L Troy

Respondent : Mr H C Quail

Solicitors:

Applicant : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Respondent : D G Price &…

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 Singh

Details

AGLC: R -v- SINGH [2013] WASC 478
Case: [2013] WASC 478
Decision Date: 21 NOVEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Singh involved an application by the Crown for the revocation of bail under section 14(1)(b) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA). The respondent, Singh, had been granted bail subject to certain conditions. The Crown sought to revoke this bail based on new information and the respondent's alleged failure to comply with the bail conditions. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was the proper approach to be adopted when considering an application for the revocation of bail. The court had to determine whether the approach to such applications was the same as that taken when deciding whether to grant or refuse bail under section 14(1)(a) of the Bail Act. Additionally, the court considered the relevance of the answers provided by the respondent to specific questions outlined in Schedule 1, Part C, clause 1 of the Bail Act, including clauses 1(a)(i) and (iv), read with clause 3, clause 1(g), and clause 1(e). The court also examined whether any other questions from clause 1 were pertinent to the decision-making process. Finally, the court needed to exercise its discretion after all relevant questions had been answered.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised that the approach to an application for the revocation of bail was distinct from that for granting or refusing bail. The court held that while the answers to the specified questions under the Bail Act were important, they were not the sole determinants of the application. The court was required to consider all relevant information, including the respondent's compliance with bail conditions, the seriousness of the alleged offence, and any new evidence that had come to light. After thoroughly examining these factors, the court concluded that the interests of justice required the revocation of bail. Therefore, the court ordered that the respondent's bail be revoked.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail revoked

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.