R v Wayne Michael Connors

In this case, the accused, Wayne Michael Connors, was the subject of a bail application which was heard by the ACT Magistrates Court. Connors applied to have a condition of his bail deleted that required him to submit to urinalysis. The legal issues the court had to address included whether requiring an accused person to submit to urinalysis was ancillary to a permitted objective of bail, whether the term “urinalysis” was ambiguous or meaningless, and whether the grant of power to Corrective Services to require an accused person to submit to urinalysis was unnecessarily restrictive.

The court found that requiring an accused person to submit to urinalysis was ancillary to a permitted objective of bail, which was to ensure the accused would attend court. The court also found that the term “urinalysis” was not ambiguous or meaningless, and that the grant of power to Corrective Services was not unnecessarily restrictive. In reaching its decision, the court considered the objectives of bail, the need to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the community, and the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). The court held that a primary bail condition was necessary to ensure the accused would attend court, and that an ancillary bail condition was justified in order to render the primary bail condition effective.

The court granted the application to amend the bail condition, by adding the words “if so directed in the course of supervision by an officer so authorised by the Director-General.” This amendment ensures that the accused is only required to submit to urinalysis if it is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. The court considered this to be a proportionate response to the need to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the community.