Re an Application for Bail by Merritt (No 2) - [2010] ACTSC 7

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

RE AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL BY CHRIS MERRITT (NO. 2)
[2010] ACTSC 7 (8 JANUARY 2010)

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail - jurisdiction to hear application for bail – new information and change in circumstances relevant to grant bail – s 43 Bail Act 1992 (ACT)
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – criteria for grant bail – cash surety – applicant desire to undertake drug rehabilitation – no offences of a serious nature – no indication of an increasing seriousness of offences – no indication that applicant is unlikely to be able to resolve criminal habits with appropriate support.
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – surety – cash provided by surety from own resources.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – Evidence and information – facts asserted from counsel – ss 4.8 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 19(6) Bail Act 1992 (ACT).
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – completion of bail form – need for reform of application form – need for applicants to complete form with information required.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournment of bail applications – need to adjourn if insufficient notice given of grounds of application.

Bail Act 1992 (ACT) ss 19(6), 23A, 19(5), 43(2), 49(1) 43, 22
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 4, 8

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
Practice Direction Number 1 (1991)
Supreme Court Rules 1937 (ACT)
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 4720, 6008
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 318(2)
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s133
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 31(2)

Douglas Brown, Bail: An Examination (1971) 45 Australian Law Journal 193

In the matter of an application for bail by Rodriguez (2008) ACTSC 50
In the matter of an application for bail by Massey (2008) ACTSC 145
In the matter of an application for bail by Day [2008] ACTSC 121
R v Hines (1997) 3 NZLR 529
In the matter of an application for bail by Skeen (2009) 2 ACTLR 53
In the matter of an application by bail by Chris Merritt [2009] ACTSC 56
R v Freeman No 2 [2001] ACTSC 86
In the matter of an application for bail by Kim [2009] ACTSC 129
Forrest v Huffa [1968] SASR 341
Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288.
King v Porter (1910) 1 KB 369
R v Baba (1977) 2 NSWLR 502
Burton v The Queen (1974) 3 ACTR 77
Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 92 FCR 168

No. SCC 477 of 2009

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 8 January 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE                   )
  )          No. SCC 477 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY               )

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL

BY

CHRIS MERRITT

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  8 January 2010
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be adjourned to 12 January 2010 at a time to be fixed.

This application for bail originally came before me on the last day of the 2009 Law Term. It is unsurprising that, as the…

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 Merritt (No 2) 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: [2010] ACTSC 7
Decision Date: 8 JANUARY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Merritt applied for bail under section 43 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), claiming that he had recently become a resident of the ACT and had no previous convictions. The application was opposed by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the basis that Merritt had pending charges and had been previously denied bail. The court was required to determine whether there had been a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a grant of bail. The court also considered whether Merritt's desire to undertake drug rehabilitation and his lack of a criminal record were factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether to grant bail.

The court found that there had been a change in circumstances, as Merritt had become a resident of the ACT and had no previous convictions. The court also noted that Merritt's desire to undertake drug rehabilitation and his lack of a criminal record were factors that supported a grant of bail. However, the court was concerned about the adequacy of the cash surety provided, as it was not clear whether the cash was provided by the surety from their own resources. The court adjourned the application to allow Merritt to provide further information about the cash surety and to consider whether a non-cash surety could be provided.

The court noted that the bail application form could be improved to ensure that applicants provided all necessary information. The court also noted that bail applications should be adjourned if insufficient notice was given of the grounds of the application. The court ordered that the application be adjourned to 12 January 2010 at a time to be fixed, to allow Merritt to provide further information about the cash surety and to consider whether a non-cash surety could be provided.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be adjourned to 12 January 2010 at a time to be fixed.

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.