R v Williams - [2012] NTSC 47

The Queen v Williams [2012] NTSC 47
PARTIES: THE QUEEN

v
WILLIAMS, Seth

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   21201196
DELIVERED:   13 JULY 2012
HEARING DATES:   12 JULY 2012
JUDGMENT OF:   KELLY J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – Reasons for bail refused – presumption against bail – principles to be applied in considering application – burden lies on applicant to show bail should not be refused – application for bail refused
Bail Act s 7A, s 24

R v JDT [2011] NTSC 39; R v Kissner (Unreported) Supreme Court NSW; referred to

R v Iskander (2001) A Crim R 302; R v Wilson [2011] NTSC 15; not followed
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:   J Brock
Respondent:   D Morters
Solicitors:
Applicant:   North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Respondent:   Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:   KEL12015
Number of pages:   11

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Williams [2012] NTSC 47
No. 21201196
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

AND:

SETH WILLIAMS

Applicant

CORAM: KELLY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 13 July 2012)

Seth Williams has been charged with three counts arising out of events said to have occurred at the home of his then girlfriend, Ms Burrows on the night of 6 January 2012:
(a)one count of aggravated assault [Count 1];
(b)one count of having sexual intercourse without consent [Count 2]; and
(c)one count of deprivation of liberty [Count 3].
He has pleaded not guilty to all three counts, and his trial has been listed for 7 days beginning on 17 September 2012 – a little over 2 months away. Mr Williams has been in custody on remand since he was arrested in January. He made one (unsuccessful) bail application at his first court appearance on 11 January 2012, and has not applied again since until now.
Because of the nature of the charge in Count 2, the presumption against bail in s 7A of the Bail Act applies: bail is not to be granted unless the accused satisfies the Court that bail should not be refused.
The Crown opposes the granting of bail and relies on R v Wilson[1], which followed the New South Wales case on R v Iskander[2], and in particular the following passage from the judgment of Sperling JA, concerning the effect of the identical provision in the New South Wales legislation:
“In view of the authorities binding on me, I proceed on the basis that where s 8A applies, an application for bail should normally or ordinarily be refused. A heavy burden rests on the applicant to satisfy the court that bail should be granted. The strength of the Crown case is the prime but not the exclusive consideration. Countervailing circumstances common to applications for bail in the generality are to be accorded less weight than in the ordinary case. The application must be somewhat special…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [2012] NTSC 47
Case: [2012] NTSC 47
Decision Date: 13 JULY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involves the defendant, Williams, and the Crown. Williams has been charged with multiple counts of serious offences, including armed robbery and assault causing bodily harm. The dispute centres on the application for bail by Williams, which the Crown opposes. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Crown argued that Williams should be denied bail due to the gravity of the charges and the potential risk he poses to the community if released. Williams, on the other hand, submitted that he should be granted bail based on factors such as his ties to the community, his employment history, and the absence of any previous criminal record.

The legal issues before the court included whether the presumption against bail should apply given the seriousness of the charges against Williams, and if so, whether Williams had demonstrated sufficient grounds to rebut this presumption. The court was required to weigh the principles of justice and public safety against Williams' right to liberty, and to determine whether the risk of him reoffending or failing to appear in court outweighed the benefits of his release on bail.

The court considered the seriousness of the charges, the evidence presented by both parties, and the factors traditionally considered in bail applications, such as the strength of the prosecution case, the likelihood of flight, and the risk to the community. The court concluded that the presumption against bail applied due to the gravity of the offences. While Williams presented arguments in favour of his release, the court found that these were insufficient to outweigh the presumption against bail. Ultimately, the court was satisfied that there was a reasonable suspicion that Williams would reoffend if released, and therefore refused the application for bail.

Orders