R v Watson

Case [2017] ACTSC 311

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Watson

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 311

Hearing Dates:

12 October; 13 October 2017

DecisionDate:

13 October 2017

Reasons Date:

31 October 2017

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

See [48] – [49] below.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – offender to be sentenced for drug trafficking and drug possession offences – long term cannabis use and recent use of other drugs – desirable for offender to participate in residential rehabilitation – bail granted for participation in residential rehabilitation.

STATUTES – Interpretation – scope of “special or exceptional” circumstances – interpretation of Bail Act 1992 (ACT) – operation of Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) – preference for particular form of rehabilitation not relevant factor, but reasons for preference may be – residential rehabilitation now available in custody for un-sentenced male prisoners but not for un‑sentenced female prisoners – differential interpretation of “special or exceptional circumstances” for male and female prisoners – interpretation of “special or exceptional circumstance favouring grant of bail” to include availability of rehabilitation opportunity in community for female bail applicant while only male prisoners have access to residential rehabilitation in custody.

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 9D, 9D(2), 22

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 8, 8(3), 28, 30, 40C

Cases Cited:

Application for bail by David Celeski [2016] ACTSC 101

In the matter of an application for bail by Islam [2010] ACTSC 147; 4 ACTLR 235
In the matter of an application for bail by Rebecca Massey [2008] ACTSC 145
In the matter of an application for bail by Rebecca Massey [No. 2] [2009] ACTSC 70
In the matter of an application for bail by SA [2010] ACTSC 114
In the matter of an application for bail by Schwalm [2011] ACTSC 153
In the matter of an Application for Bail by Timothy Noel Allan [2009] ACTSC 64
R v Celeski [2016] ACTSC 140
R v Cockburn [2015] ACTSC 297
R v Elphick [2014] ACTSC 372
R v JM [2011] ACTSC 157

R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 8

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Kristie Lee Watson (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S Naidu (Crown)

Mr B Shelton (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Sharman Robertson (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 165 of 2017; SCC 168 of 2017

Background

  1. Kristie Lee Watson has pleaded guilty to nine offences involving or associated with drug trafficking. The offences came to light on two separate occasions, first in November 2015 when police executed a search warrant at Ms Watson’s home and second in April 2017 when police observed Ms Watson selling drugs from her car in a car park and subsequently executed a search warrant at her home. She has now pleaded guilty to nine charges. 

2015 charges

  1. Five charges arise out of the 2015 incident, and are as follows:

(a)trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis;

(b)being knowingly concerned in the trafficking of a controlled drug, being MDMA (Ecstasy);

(c)being knowingly concerned in the trafficking of a controlled drug, being…

Continue reading R v Watson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Watson [2017] ACTSC 311
Case
[2017] ACTSC 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Watson involved an offender who was awaiting sentencing for drug trafficking and drug possession offences. The individual had a history of long-term cannabis use and had recently used other drugs. The court was tasked with determining whether the offender should be granted bail to participate in residential rehabilitation. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The central legal issue was whether the availability of residential rehabilitation for the offender in the community constituted a "special or exceptional circumstance" under the Bail Act 1992 (ACT). The court needed to interpret the term "special or exceptional circumstance" and consider whether the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) influenced the interpretation of this term. Additionally, the court had to determine if the preference for a particular form of rehabilitation was a relevant factor or if the reasons for such a preference could be considered. The case also involved a comparison between the rehabilitation opportunities available to male and female prisoners.

The court found that while the preference for a particular form of rehabilitation was not a relevant factor, the reasons for such a preference could be considered. The court held that residential rehabilitation was now available in custody for un-sentenced male prisoners but not for un-sentenced female prisoners. The court interpreted "special or exceptional circumstance" to include the availability of a rehabilitation opportunity in the community for a female bail applicant, when only male prisoners had access to residential rehabilitation in custody. Based on this interpretation, the court granted the offender bail to participate in residential rehabilitation.

The court's final orders were to grant the offender bail under the conditions specified in paragraphs [48] and [49] of the decision. These orders reflected the court's interpretation of the relevant statutes and its consideration of the circumstances of the case. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the availability of rehabilitation opportunities when determining bail for offenders awaiting sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [48] – [49] below.

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.