R v Walton - [2021] NSWDC 182

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Walton [2021] NSWDC 182
Hearing dates: 27 April 2021 and by submissions
Date of orders: 27 April 2021
Decision date: 27 April 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:
I grant the accused bail with conditions as outlined in paragraph [17].

Catchwords:
Criminal Law – bail application – show cause offence – significant delay – strength of Crown case – oath against oath - detention not justified

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013
Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:
R v Farrell [2016] NSWSC 1278
R v Daniel [2014] NSWSC 1968
R v Cain (No 1) [2001] NSWSC 116

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Gary Walton (Accused)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Thomas (DPP)
Mr Blomfield

File Number(s): 2020/00136689
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order in relation to the names of the two complainants.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Gary Lesley Walton applies for bail. He was arrested on 7 May 2020. On 8 May 2020 he was refused bail by the Local Court. The applicant relies upon s 74(3)(c) of the Bail Act in that there is a change of circumstances. It is submitted that the time the applicant has served in custody is longer than was anticipated at the initial bail hearing. The premise that a change of circumstances must be demonstrated is a false premise.
Section 74 is headed, "Multiple release or detention applications to same Court not permitted." Subsection (1) refers to, "A Court that refuses bail for an offence." The Local Court refused bail. The District Court has not. Second or subsequent release applications after a refusal of bail are not permitted in the same Court unless there are grounds for a further application.
Section 74 has no application to this bail application because the District Court is not the same Court that refused bail. The applicant has misconceived s 74. In my view the bail application to this Court is to be dealt with as a new hearing. However, if I am wrong about that a change in trial date since the refusal of bail can constitute a change of circumstances: R v Farrell [2016] NSWSC 1278 at [8]; R v Daniel [2014] NSWSC 1968 at [9].
Pursuant to s 61 of the Bail Act, a Court may hear a bail application for an offence if proceedings for the offence are pending in the Court. The accused was arraigned on a 15 count indictment on 11 December 2020. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. The offences are pending in this Court. Jurisdiction to hear a bail application is made out.
I have read the Crown case statement comprising 17 paragraphs which is undated. It is exhibit 1 in the proceedings. In short compass, serious allegations are made against the applicant. There is a single count for the complainant, AP. The applicant was in a relationship with her mother. He was acting as the stepfather. It is alleged he pulled his pants down and asked her to suck his…

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 Walton

Details

AGLC: R v Walton [2021] NSWDC 182
Case: [2021] NSWDC 182
Decision Date: 27 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Walton, the respondent applied for bail in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent was charged with a show cause offence, and the application was made after a significant delay in the proceedings. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent should be granted bail, given the delay and the strength of the Crown's case. The respondent argued that the delay had prejudiced their ability to prepare a defence and that detention was not necessary. The Crown countered that the delay was due to the respondent's actions and that the case against the respondent was strong enough to warrant detention.

The court considered the principles of bail, particularly the balance between the presumption of innocence and the strength of the prosecution case. It emphasised the importance of fairness in the administration of justice, noting that undue delay could prejudice the respondent's right to a fair trial. The court found that the delay in this case was significant and that the respondent had been prejudiced. However, it also considered the evidence presented by the Crown and concluded that the case against the respondent, though strong, did not reach the threshold where detention was necessary. The court held that an oath against an oath was not sufficient to justify detention, especially when the respondent's rights to a fair trial were at stake.

The court granted the respondent bail, imposing conditions to ensure that the respondent would appear for trial and comply with any other reasonable directions of the court. The decision highlighted the importance of timely proceedings and the need to protect the rights of the accused in the face of significant delays. The court's reasoning underscored the balance between ensuring justice for the respondent and the public interest in the efficient administration of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

I grant the accused bail with conditions as outlined in paragraph [17].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Walton [2021] NSWDC 182
Hearing dates:	27 April 2021 and by submissions
Date of orders:	27 April 2021
Decision date:	27 April 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Grant DCJ
Decision:	I grant the accused bail with conditions as outlined in paragraph [17].
Catchwords:	Criminal Law – bail application – show cause offence – significant delay – strength of Crown case – oath against oath - detention not justified
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 2013 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	R v Farrell [2016] NSWSC 1278 R v Daniel [2014] NSWSC 1968 R v Cain (No 1) [2001] NSWSC 116
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Gary Walton (Accused)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr Thomas (DPP) Mr Blomfield
File Number(s):	2020/00136689
Publication restriction:	Statutory non-publication order in relation to the names of the two complainants.