Rasaubale v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - [2019] WASC 142

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   RASAUBALE -v- COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [2019] WASC 142
CORAM:   FIANNACA J
HEARD:   27 MARCH & 4 APRIL 2019
DELIVERED          :   4 APRIL 2019
PUBLISHED           :   1 MAY 2019
FILE NO/S:   MBA 17 of 2019
BETWEEN:   SERUPEPELI ANTHONY RASAUBALE
Applicant

AND

COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Bail application - Importation of more than one tonne of methylamphetamine - Application of cl 1(g) of sch 1 pt C of Bail Act 1982 (WA) - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA)

Result:

Bail refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr T Percy QC & Mr D Renton (27 March 2019)
Respondent	:	Mr L Glenn (27 March 2019)

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Zara Lawyers
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd [1972] RPC 103
Jemielita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362
Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1
Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 99; (2011) 42 WAR 99
Minister for Resources v Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 565
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Quaid [2009] WASC 202
Sabau v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 183
The State of Western Australia v Sturgeon [2005] WASC 256
Vander Waide v Western Australia Police [2015] WASC 497
WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279
YSN v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 155

FIANNACA J:

On 4 April 2019, I refused this application for bail and gave brief reasons, with detailed reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

The application and its history

The applicant, Serupepeli Anthony Rasaubale, has applied for bail in respect of a charge of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to s 307.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth) (the Criminal Code). The application is opposed by the respondent, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (the CDPP).
The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment or a fine of $1,575,000 or both.
The offence is alleged to have been committed on 21 December 2017 at Geraldton. The applicant was arrested on that day and has been in custody on remand since then. He is alleged to have been a member of a syndicate that was involved in the importation of more than one tonne of methamphetamine. It is said by the CDPP that it is currently the largest seizure of methamphetamine in Australian history. Eight co‑accused were also charged. In essence, the prosecution's case is that the applicant was caught 'red‑handed' after he and others loaded bags containing the methamphetamine, which had been imported on a marine vessel, into a van he had rented.
The applicant was initially charged with the offence of possessing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, contrary to s 307.8 of the Criminal Code. That offence carries the same maximum penalty…

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 Rasaubale v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Details

AGLC: Supressed [2019] WASC 142
Case: [2019] WASC 142
Decision Date: 1 MAY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rasaubale v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the defendant sought bail in relation to charges stemming from the importation of more than one tonne of methylamphetamine. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the primary issue was whether the defendant was eligible for bail under clause 1(g) of schedule 1 part C of the Bail Act 1982 (WA). The clause provides that a person who has been charged with a serious drug offence and is considered likely to reoffend should be denied bail. The court was required to determine whether the facts of the case justified the denial of bail under this provision.

The court examined the nature and scale of the defendant's alleged criminal activity, which involved the importation of a large quantity of a dangerous drug. The court considered whether the defendant's conduct demonstrated a likelihood of reoffending, which would necessitate the denial of bail. In reaching its decision, the court weighed the potential risk to the community if the defendant were granted bail against the defendant's right to liberty. The court also considered the defendant's background, criminal history, and the circumstances of the alleged offence.

The court concluded that the defendant's alleged conduct demonstrated a significant risk of reoffending and a potential danger to the community. Given the scale and seriousness of the alleged offence, the court found that the defendant's risk of reoffending outweighed the defendant's right to liberty. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant's application for bail. The court's decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the application of the relevant statutory provision.

No orders were made in relation to the defendant's application for bail. The defendant remains in custody pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

Orders