R v Tasker (No 2) - [2015] NSWSC 467

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Tasker (No 2)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWSC 467
Hearing Date(s):	15 - 16 April 2015
Decision Date:	16 April 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Button J
Decision:	Bail is refused.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – bail – “show cause” offence – strong Crown case – plea of guilty entered – effects of plea of guilty upon bail application – bail refused
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Glenn Tasker (Applicant) Regina
Representation:	Solicitors: Mark Klees & Associates (Applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):	2015/77763

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Yesterday I indicated that I was prepared to grant bail to the applicant. That was despite the powerful prosecution case that he had committed a very serious offence, with regard to which he is required to “show cause” pursuant to the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). Reference should be made to my now otiose reasons of yesterday, which have been taken out and will remain on the court file, along with some of the transcript of the proceedings.
I based that indication upon the practical absence of a criminal record of the applicant; the very sound community ties available to him; the appreciation shown by his family of the underlying causes of the alleged offence; the stringency of the proposed bail conditions; and a very substantial cash surety.
Regrettably, due to a logistical oversight, when I gave that indication yesterday I was not aware of the steps that had just been taken with regard to his substantive matters in another court on that very day.
It is now clear that the applicant pleaded guilty yesterday to possession of an air rifle at the scene of the cultivation, and was sentenced to imprisonment for three months for that offence.
Separately, it is also clear that yesterday he pleaded guilty to two counts to do with the cultivation of cannabis. One was of cultivating prohibited plants simpliciter, and the other was of cultivating a commercial quantity of prohibited plants.
Once it was made clear to me after lunch that there had been unknown substantial forensic developments in the matter elsewhere, I immediately revoked bail for abundant caution, even despite not having proceeded to impose conditions. The matter was stood over until today so that what occurred in the other court yesterday could be thoroughly checked; so that no further errors could take place; and so that the parties could have a chance to reflect and make further submissions without being under undue pressure.
To my mind, the pleas of guilty entered yesterday by the applicant to the offences, in particular to the offence of cultivating a commercial quantity of prohibited plants, change the position very markedly.
First, the applicant is no longer entitled to the presumption of innocence. That principle remains an important matter to be taken into account in any bail application in which a plea of not guilty is extant.
Secondly, any weaknesses…

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 Tasker (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Tasker (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 467
Case: [2015] NSWSC 467
Decision Date: 16 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Tasker, applied for bail pending appeal against conviction. The matter came before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the merits of the application in light of the respondent's entry of a guilty plea. The central issue before the court was whether the entry of a guilty plea could impact the assessment of a bail application, particularly when the Crown case was considered strong.

The court noted that the entry of a guilty plea did not necessarily preclude a successful bail application, but it was a factor to be weighed in the overall assessment. The court emphasised that the standard for bail applications, particularly in cases where the Crown case was strong, was a high one. It was necessary for the applicant to show a compelling reason why bail should be granted. The court found that the respondent had not met this burden, primarily because the Crown case was strong, and the potential sentence was significant. This, combined with the respondent's history of breaching bail conditions, led the court to conclude that the respondent had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for bail.

Consequently, the Full Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the primary judge's decision to refuse bail. The court held that the strong Crown case, coupled with the respondent's history of breaching bail conditions, outweighed any arguments in favour of granting bail. The court's decision underscored the importance of the strength of the prosecution case in bail applications, particularly when a guilty plea has been entered.

Orders