R v Wilson - [2011] NTSC 15

R v Wilson [2011] NTSC 15

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

WILSON, GEOFFREY

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: 20931372

DELIVERED: 4 MARCH 2011

HEARING DATES: 1 MARCH 2011

JUDGMENT OF: REEVES J

CATCHWORDS:

BAIL
Application for bail pending sentencing hearing – defendant pleaded guilty to an offence to which the presumption against bail under s 7A(1) of the Bail Act (NT) applies – the Bail Act (NT) applies to defendants during the period between a guilty plea and their sentencing under s 6(c)(ii) of the Bail Act (NT) – consideration of the circumstances necessary to overcome the presumption – circumstances need to be sufficiently special or unusual – something more than the circumstances generally common to all bail applications – a heavy burden rests on the applicant – the strength of the Crown case is an important consideration – none of defendant’s circumstances sufficiently special or unusual to displace the presumption

Held the defendant’s application for bail refused

Evidence Act (NT) s 21B(2)(b)
Bail Act (NT) ss 3, 3A(1), 6(c)(ii), 7A, 7A(1), 7A(2), 8(1), 8(2)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Bail Act (NSW) s 8A
Sentencing Act (NT) s 50

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Germakian (2006) 166 A Crim R 201
R v Iskandar (2001) 120 A Crim R 302
R v Kissner (unreported, Supreme Court, NSW, No 70768 of 1992, 17 January 1992)

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr Robson
Defendant: Mr Sinoch

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant: Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service

Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:   REE1102
Number of pages:   11

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS

R v Wilson [2011] NTSC 15
No. 20931372

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Plaintiff

AND:

GEOFFREY WILSON
Defendant

CORAM: REEVES J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 4 March 2011)

Shortly before a special sitting for the purpose of recording the evidence of a vulnerable witness under s 21B(2)(b) of the Evidence Act (NT), the defendant’s counsel, Mr Sinoch, indicated that his client intended to plead guilty to both of the charges. Accordingly, when the special sitting commenced, Mr Robson for the Crown presented an indictment and the defendant was arraigned on it. In response, the defendant pleaded guilty to both of the charges contained in the indictment. They were:

Count 1
[That] [o]n 10 October 2007 at Yuendumu in the Northern Territory of Australia, [you] unlawfully entered a building, namely Lot 444 Ti Tree Crescent, Yuendumu with intent to commit an offence therein, namely, assault
AND THAT the unlawful entry involved the following circumstances of aggravation, namely,
that the offence intended to be committed therein was a crime, namely stealing
that the building was a dwelling house, and
that the unlawful entry occurred at night-time.
AND FURTHER
Count 2
[That] [o]n 10 October 2007 at Yuendumu in the Northern Territory of Australia, [you] had sexual intercourse with HM without her consent and knowing about or…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2011] NTSC 15
Case: [2011] NTSC 15
Decision Date: 04/03/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wilson involved the defendant, Geoffrey Wilson, who pleaded guilty to serious sexual offences in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The court was required to decide whether Wilson was entitled to bail pending his sentencing hearing. Given the serious nature of the offences and the presumption against bail under s 7A(1) of the Bail Act (NT), the legal issues centred on whether Wilson could overcome this presumption by presenting sufficiently special or unusual circumstances.

Reeves J, the presiding judge, considered the principles established in previous decisions, particularly the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Germakian, where a similar presumption against bail was considered. The judge noted that the strength of the Crown's case was paramount, and Wilson bore a heavy burden to demonstrate special or unusual circumstances. The judge found that Wilson's proposed circumstances, such as his youth, community ties, desire to continue his education, and the presence of a cash surety, were not sufficiently exceptional to overcome the presumption against bail. Consequently, the application for bail was refused.

The final orders of the court were that Geoffrey Wilson's application for bail was refused, and the sentencing hearing was to proceed as scheduled.

Orders