R -v- YANKO [2001] WASC 1

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 1
Published:	10/01/2001
Case No:	MCS:83/2000	Heard:	19 DECEMBER 2000
Coram:	SCOTT J	Delivered:	19/12/00
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail revoked
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN WAYNE JOHN YANKO
Catchwords:	Criminal law Bail revocation Onus of proof upon Crown Respondent on remand for serious drug offences Further serious charges pending Previous history of absconding whilst on bail Bail revoked
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982, s 3, s 14(1)(b), s 54, s 55, s 55(1)(a)
Case References:	Yanko v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960030; 23 January 1996 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : R -v- YANKO [2001] WASC 1 CORAM : SCOTT J HEARD : 19 DECEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 19 DECEMBER 2000 PUBLISHED : 10 JANUARY 2001 FILE NO/S : MCS 83 of 2000 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Applicant

AND

WAYNE JOHN YANKO

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Bail revocation - Onus of proof upon Crown - Respondent on remand for serious drug offences - Further serious charges pending - Previous history of absconding whilst on bail - Bail revoked

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982, s 3, s 14(1)(b), s 54, s 55, s 55(1)(a)

Result:

Bail revoked

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms G A Archer

Respondent : Ms V Amidzic

Solicitors:

Applicant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Amidzic & Co

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Yanko v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960030; 23 January 1996

Case(s) also cited:

Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279

(Page 3)

1 SCOTT J: In this matter the Director of Public Prosecutions applied to revoke the respondent's bail, which had been granted in the Court of Petty Sessions on 7 October 1999 and renewed following a preliminary hearing which concluded on 21 November 2000 when a committal order was made. Bail was revoked on 19 December 2000 with reasons to be published later. These are those reasons.

2 The respondent had been arrested and charged with possession of amphetamines with intent to sell or supply to another and bail was fixed in the sum of $300,000 with a surety in like amount and a cash deposit of $75,000. There were various reporting and residential conditions.

3 Following the committal order, on 28 November 2000, further charges were preferred against the respondent. Those charges were:

"(a) that between 31 January 2000 and 24 May 2000 the respondent conspired to manufacture amphetamines;

(b) that on 8 May 2000 the respondent possessed an unlicensed firearm;

(d) that on 28 November 2000 the respondent possessed an unlicensed firearm."

4 The two drug charges were serious offences as defined in s 3…

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 Yanko

Details

AGLC: R v Yanko [2001] WASC 1
Case: [2001] WASC 1
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Yanko involved the respondent, Yanko, whose bail was revoked by the court. Yanko was on remand for serious drug offences and faced further serious charges pending. The respondent had a previous history of absconding while on bail. The Crown sought to revoke Yanko's bail, arguing that his release would be detrimental to the community and would likely lead to further offending. The court was tasked with determining whether the Crown had met its onus of proof in establishing that Yanko's release was not in the best interests of justice.

The primary legal issue was the onus of proof in bail revocation cases and whether the Crown had adequately demonstrated that Yanko's release would be contrary to the interests of justice. The court considered the respondent's history of absconding, the nature and seriousness of the charges against him, and the potential risk he posed to the community if released. The court had to balance the respondent's right to liberty against the need to protect the community and ensure the proper administration of justice.

The court found that the Crown had successfully discharged its onus of proof. It noted Yanko's previous history of absconding, the serious nature of the pending charges, and the risk that he would reoffend if released on bail. The court was satisfied that Yanko's release would be detrimental to the community and likely lead to further offending. Consequently, the court revoked Yanko's bail and ordered that he remain in custody until his matters were further heard. The decision underscored the importance of protecting the community and ensuring that bail is not granted if there is a significant risk of reoffending or absconding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail revoked

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.