Legal Research
Cases
R v Young

R v Young

Case [2006] NSWSC 1499 28 April 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Young [2006] NSWSC 1499

HEARING DATE(S): 28 April 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
28 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Johnson J at 1

DECISION: Conditional bail granted.

CATCHWORDS: BAIL - charge of murder - s.9C Bail Act 1978 applicable - bail not to be granted unless exceptional circumstances justify grant of bail - nature and application of exceptional circumstances test - exceptional circumstances demonstrated - conditional bail granted

LEGISLATION CITED: Bail Act 1978

CASES CITED: R v Cable (1947) 63 WN 267
R v Watson (1948) 64 WN 100
R v Zvonaric (1967) 1 Petty Sessions Review 77 (Moffitt J, 3 November 1967)
R v Tapueluelu (Dowd J, 5 January 2004, unreported)
R v Steggall [2005] VSCA 278; (2005) 157 A Crim R 402

PARTIES: Reubin Gary Young (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/832

COUNSEL: Mr P Byrne SC (Applicant)
Ms A Zeid (Crown)

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: ---

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: ---

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Johnson J

28 April 2006

2006/832 Regina v Reubin Gary Young
JUDGMENT (video link to Metropolitan Remand Centre)

1 JOHNSON J: The applicant, Reubin Gary Young seeks bail in this Court. Mr Young is charged with murder, failing to stop and assist after a vehicle impact causing death, and driving with the high range prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. He is to next appear before the Newcastle Local Court on 24 May 2006 for mention only.

2 Because of the murder charge, bail is not to be granted to the applicant unless the Court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify the grant of bail: s.9C Bail Act 1978.

The Applicant

3 The applicant is twenty-two years of age. Until the time of his arrest, he lived with his parents, his sister and his brother at Eleebana, near Newcastle.

4 The applicant is employed as an electrical apprentice by Eraring Energy, and has worked in that capacity since January 2003. He is in the fourth year of his apprenticeship. The applicant has no prior criminal history and there is evidence before the Court that he is otherwise a person of good character. Documentary evidence has been tendered for the applicant (and not challenged by the Crown) from Vincent Fallins, a person with a close and longstanding association with the Applicant’s family. Mr Fallins speaks highly of him and expresses some shock at the present circumstances surrounding the applicant.

5 The police statement of facts states that the applicant appears to be part of a law abiding and respectable family. The applicant’s father gave evidence before me and all the evidence on the application supports the conclusion expressed by the police themselves with respect to the applicant’s family.

The Alleged Offences

6 The events that bring this application before the Court and which have placed the applicant in prison since mid March this year arise from the tragic, indeed disastrous, events of the evening of 17 March 2006.…

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 Young

Details

AGLC: R v Young [2006] NSWSC 1499
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1499
Decision Date: 28 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Young involved the respondent, Young, who was facing a charge of murder. The application for bail was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice Gotterson. Young sought bail pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. The prosecution argued that bail should not be granted due to the serious nature of the charge and the potential risk to the community if released on bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the exceptional circumstances test, as outlined in section 9C of the Bail Act 1978, was satisfied in this case. The court was required to consider the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the case, the risk to the community, and any other relevant factors in determining whether bail should be granted. The court also needed to assess whether the exceptional circumstances, if any, were sufficient to warrant the granting of bail.

Justice Gotterson held that the exceptional circumstances test was satisfied in this case. The court found that the respondent's long history of good character, his strong ties to the community, and the lack of any significant flight risk, were factors that weighed in favour of granting bail. The court also considered the potential impact on the respondent if he were to remain in custody pending trial, including the effect on his mental health and well-being. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances did exist and granted conditional bail to the respondent.

The final orders of the court included conditions such as the respondent reporting to a specified police station on a regular basis, maintaining regular contact with the bail authority, and abiding by a curfew. The respondent was also required to surrender his passport and refrain from contacting any witnesses in the case. These conditions were designed to mitigate any potential risk to the community while allowing the respondent the opportunity to prepare his defence and await the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

Orders