SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
| Case Title: | R v Williams |
| Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 35 |
| Hearing Date: | 10 March 2021 |
| Decision Date: | 11 March 2021 |
| Before: | Elkaim J |
| Decision: | The application for bail is refused |
| Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL APPLICATION – Change of Circumstances – Medical condition – incident involving use of force – warrant for apprehension of applicant – application |
| refused | |
| Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT) ss 9D, 20C and 22 Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) s 53 |
| Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) s 10 | |
| Cases Cited: | Achanfuo-Yeboah v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 71 R v Al-Harazi (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 298 |
| Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Julieann Frances Williams (Accused) |
| Representation: | Counsel |
| V Conliffe (Crown) P Tierney (Accused) | |
| Solicitors | |
| ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ken Cush and Associates (Accused) | |
| File Number: | SCC 279 of 2020 |
| ELKAIM J: |
1. On 4 March 2021 Ms Julieann Williams filed an application for bail. It came on for hearing yesterday. The application was opposed.
2. The application was supported by an affidavit of Mr Barrow affirmed on 3 March 2021. In addition a number of other documents were tendered and can be found in Exhibit A.
3. The Crown tendered a bundle which came to be Exhibit 1.
4. Both parties asked me to view CCTV footage said to support their respective positions.
5. The relevant sections of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) are ss 9D, 20C and 22. Section 9D was activated because the offences were alleged to have been committed while the applicant was subject to a pending charge for another serious offence. The offences in respect of which the applicant is seeking bail are aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
6. Section 20C is relevant because this is the fifth application for bail, the previous four having been made in the Magistrates Court. One of those applications, made on 3 November 2020, is of little relevance because it was for a limited period to enable the applicant to attend a funeral. All of the previous applications were refused.
7. Section 22 contains the general criteria for granting bail to adults.
8. Section 9D says bail must not be granted unless there are special or exceptional circumstances that favour the granting of bail. Section 20C says the application can only be considered if there has been a change of circumstances relevant to the granting of bail since the last application.
9. Both the special circumstances and the change of circumstances are said to arise from an incident that occurred while the applicant was in custody at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) on 11 January 2021. This incident was the subject of the CCTV footage I was shown by the applicant.
10. The footage speaks for itself, but in short, it depicts the applicant being manhandled by four corrections officers in order to subject the applicant to a strip search which she had refused to take part voluntarily. The officers had apparently been informed that the…
Continue reading R v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 298
- Case
- [2021] ACTSC 35
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the legal principles surrounding bail applications, particularly focusing on the requirement for a significant change in circumstances to warrant reconsideration. The court assessed Williams’ medical condition and the implications of his deteriorating health on his ability to comply with bail conditions. Additionally, the court weighed the risk posed by Williams to the community and the seriousness of the charges against him. The court concluded that the medical condition, while serious, did not constitute a significant change in circumstances sufficient to warrant bail. The potential risk to the community and the gravity of the charges were also significant factors in the court's decision.
After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the change in Williams’ medical condition, although serious, did not outweigh the other factors in favour of granting bail. The court also took into account the warrant for Williams’ apprehension, which indicated a serious breach of bail conditions if released. Consequently, the court refused the application for bail, maintaining the existing conditions or ordering Williams’ continued detention.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application for bail is refused
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.