Re Baker

Case [2013] QMC 17

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Baker, Re [2013] QMC 17

PARTIES:

BRADLEY MAURICE BAKER

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MAG223598/13(7)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Interlocutory application, Re an application for Bail

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

21 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

15 November 2013, 19 November 2013, 21 November 2013

MAGISTRATE:

COSTANZO JJ

ORDER:

Pursuant to practice direction 21 of 2013, the contested bail application made at Southport by Bradley Maurice Baker is adjourned to court no. 20 at the Brisbane Magistrates Court

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - BAIL — Contested bail applications — Participant in a  criminal organisation — Practice Direction — Whether Practice Direction valid or binding on Magistrates — Threshold issue “is defendant a participant in a criminal organisation?” — Whether threshold issue must be decided, before Practice Direction applies to bail application.

LEGISLATIVE 

PROVISIONS 

CONSIDERED

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14B

Bail Act 1980, s 8, s 9, s 15A, s 15B, s 16

Criminal Code, s 60A, s 597C

Criminal Organisations Act 2009

Justices Act 1886, s 22B, s 23C, s 23E, s 23EC, s 139

Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013

Magistrates Act 1991, s 12, s 41 and Practice Direction No. 21 of 2013, Chief Magistrate (Qld), 4 November 2013

CASES CITED

Asmar, Bail application [2005] VSC 487

Da Silva v Director of Public Prosecution; Da Silva v Director of Public Prosecution; Spence v Director of Public Prosecution [2013] QSC 316

Lacey v DPP (Qld); Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413

Neale, Re an Application for Bail [2013] QSC 310

Spence v Queensland Police Service [2013] QMC 14

Williamson v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] 1QdR 99

OTHER SOURCES CITED

Mack K. and Anleu S.R.: The Administrative Authority of Chief Judicial Officers in Australia (2004) 8 Newcastle Law Review 1

Oxford Dictionary of English, online edition

Oxford Thesaurus of English, Second Edition

Record of Proceedings (Hansard), Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Queensland, 15 October 2013

COUNSEL:

M Gatenby (solicitor) for the applicant

D Summerfield (sergeant) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gatenby Criminal Lawyers for the applicant

Respondent on own behalf

Background

  1. Bradley Maurice Baker is charged with three charges:

    1.“That on the 13th day of November 2013 at Main Beach in the State of Queensland one Bradley Maurice BAKER being a participant in a criminal organisation namely the motorcycle club known as the Mongols was knowingly present in a public place namely (sic) public foyer area of Palazzo Versace with two or more other persons namely James William CLEAVE and Leslie Andrew MARKHAM who were participants in a criminal organisation namely the motorcycle club known as the Mongols.”

    2.“That on the 13th day of November 2013 at Main Beach in the State of Queensland one Bradley Maurice BAKER unlawfully had possession of a dangerous drug namely Alprazolam.” It is alleged he possessed four full and four pieces of tablets of XANAX.

    3.“That on or about the 13th

Continue reading Re Baker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Baker [2013] QMC 17
Case
[2013] QMC 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Baker, the defendant sought bail in a contested application at the Southport Magistrates Court. The central issue in the case was whether the magistrate was bound by a Practice Direction issued by the Chief Magistrate, particularly in determining if the defendant was a participant in a criminal organisation. This determination was a threshold issue before the Practice Direction could apply to the bail application. The decision required the court to consider the validity and binding nature of the Practice Direction, and whether the magistrate had to decide the threshold issue before applying the Practice Direction.

The legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of Practice Direction 21 of 2013. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Practice Direction was binding on the magistrate and whether it mandated a particular sequence of decision-making. The Practice Direction addressed the criteria for granting bail to individuals involved in criminal organisations, and the court had to decide if the magistrate was required to first determine whether the defendant was a participant in such an organisation before applying the criteria set out in the Practice Direction.

The court found that the Practice Direction was not binding and did not impose a mandatory sequence of decision-making. It concluded that the magistrate had discretion in determining the appropriate sequence of decision-making. Furthermore, the court held that the Practice Direction did not require the magistrate to decide the threshold issue of whether the defendant was a participant in a criminal organisation before applying the criteria for bail. The contested bail application was subsequently adjourned to another court in Brisbane pursuant to the Practice Direction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to practice direction 21 of 2013, the contested bail application made at Southport by Bradley Maurice Baker is adjourned to court no. 20 at the Brisbane Magistrates Court

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.