Re An Application for Bail BY Chris Merritt - [2009] ACTSC 56

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

RE AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL BY CHRIS MERRITT
[2009] ACTSC 56 (18 May 2009)

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – bail – sureties – obligations – Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 25.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – bail – offences charged while on bail – special and exceptional circumstances – overcrowding in a remand facility - Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 9D, 9G, 43.

EVIDENCE – bail - Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 19.

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 403(1)
Bail Act 2002 (ACT), ss 9, 9D, 9G, 9G(2), 19, 19(6), 22, 22(1), 22(1)(c), 22(3), 22(3)(c), 25,25(1)(b)-(c), 32, 43, 49(1), 56, Dictionary
Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act1971 (Cth), s 11(1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 26
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 30

Pollock F and Maitland F W, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I (2^nd Ed, Cambridge University Press, 1911)

In the Matter of an Application for Bail by Skeen [2009] ACTSC 30
R v Fraser and Jacobs (1892) 13 LR (NSW) 150
Eleko v Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria & Anor [1928] AC 459
In the Matter of an Application for Bail by Massey [2008] ACTSC 145
In the Matter of an Application for Bail by Skeen [2009] ACTSC 30
R v Freeman [No 2] [2001] ACTSC 86
Anon (1704) 6 Mod Rep 231; 87 ER 982
Ex parte Lyne (1822) 3 Stark 132; 171 ER 798
R v Butcher (1792) Peak 226; 170 ER 138
R v Kristiansen [2008] ACTSC 83

R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison & Ors; Ex parte Hague [1992] 1 AC 58

R v Benbrika and Ors [No 20] (2008) 18 VR 410
Nasr v New South Wales (2007) 170 A Crim R 78

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

No. SCC 405 of 2008

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 18 May 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 405 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

RE AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL BY CHRIS MERRITT

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  18 May 2009
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant, Chris Merritt, has applied for a review of a decision made by Ms K Fryar, Magistrate, to refuse him bail. I refused that application on 3 November 2008 and indicated I would give my reasons later. These are my reasons.

Mr Merritt had been charged with a number of offences over some time. Relevantly, he appeared before the learned Magistrate on 19 September 2008 when bail was refused. In this case, I did not have the advantage of annotated bench sheets from the Magistrates Court (see In the Matter of an Application for Bail by Skeen [2009] ACTSC 30 at [10]) and Mr Merritt’s affidavit, which he prepared himself from the usual pro-forma, did not even attempt to summarise the grounds of the application before her Honour nor reasons why bail was refused.

The proceedings

Mr Merritt was originally charged with relevant offences on 16…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re An Application for Bail BY Chris Merritt and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] ACTSC 56
Decision Date: 18 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chris Merritt applied for bail under the Bail Act 1992 (ACT). The application arose from charges laid under the Criminal Code (Cth), including aggravated sexual assault, deprivation of liberty, and common assault. The application was heard in the ACT Magistrates Court. The applicant argued that bail should be granted due to the overcrowded conditions in the remand facility and that the requirements of the Bail Act had been satisfied.

The primary legal issues for the court were whether the applicant satisfied the bail conditions and if there were special or exceptional circumstances that warranted bail. The court considered whether the applicant had a history of absconding or failing to appear, the risk of reoffending, and whether the applicant had a realistic prospect of success at trial. The court also examined the impact of the overcrowded conditions on the applicant's rights under the Bail Act.

In assessing the application, the court found that the applicant had not satisfied the bail conditions as there was a substantial risk of reoffending. The court held that the applicant's criminal history, including a history of absconding, indicated a significant risk of reoffending. Additionally, the court determined that the overcrowded conditions, while relevant, did not constitute exceptional circumstances that would warrant bail. The court held that the evidence did not support a finding that the applicant would be at risk of a serious miscarriage of justice due to the conditions. The court concluded that granting bail would not be in the interests of justice.

The court refused the application for bail. The court noted that the applicant had a history of absconding and had been charged with serious offences while on bail. The court held that the risk of reoffending was too high to grant bail. The court also found that the conditions in the remand facility, while undesirable, did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances under the Bail Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

I refused the application for bail.

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.