Re Best - [2014] QSC 125

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Best [2014] QSC 125

PARTIES:

JOSHUA RUSSELL BEST
(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QLD)
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 4949/14

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application for bail

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2014

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson J

ORDER:

Bail is granted, on the conditions set out in a draft order initialled and placed on the court file

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – before trial – generally – where the applicant must show cause why detention in custody is not justified

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – jurisdiction of Supreme Court – generally

Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 9, s 16
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)

R v Jurd [2007] QCA 228

COUNSEL:

R Frigo of counsel for the applicant Joshua Russell Best
A J Robinson, solicitor, for the respondent DPP(Qld)

SOLICITORS:

Potts Lawyers for the applicant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Wilson J: Mr Best, 23, has been in custody since 30 April 2014 on two charges: entering a dwelling with intent and using/threatening violence whilst armed and in company, and robbery with actual violence (again, whilst armed and/or in company). He seeks bail.

The application is brought under the Bail Act 1980 (Qld). There is a presumed entitlement to bail for a person held in custody on criminal charges under s 9, but that presumption is rebutted if the court is satisfied, under s 16(1), that there is an unacceptable risk that the defendant if released on bail would fail to appear and surrender into custody or would, while released on bail, commit an offence, or endanger the safety or welfare of a person who is claiming to be the victim of an offence, or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

The burden of establishing that there is an unacceptable risk ordinarily falls upon the Crown but, under ss 16(3) and 16(3A), that burden shifts in certain circumstances to the applicant, who must be refused bail if he or she cannot show cause that detention in custody is not justified.

Mr Best carries that burden because a weapon, a knife, was allegedly used during the incident which led to him being charged. Nevertheless, the primary focus remains upon the question whether or not any risk associated with bail and the matters set out in paragraph [2] is unacceptable.

The charges against Mr Best arise out of a home invasion on 17 April 2014, albeit that he was not physically present and the actual invaders were two other men with whom he is jointly charged.

It is said that they were acting on his behalf to collect a debt from one the occupants of the home and that he counselled and procured their undertaking the invasion, the threatening of an occupant by them with a knife, and their taking of motor vehicles; and, that there was communication between them and Mr Best…

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 Re Best

Details

AGLC: Re Best [2014] QSC 125
Case: [2014] QSC 125
Decision Date: 10 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Best, the applicant sought bail prior to trial. The court was required to consider the applicant's circumstances and whether they demonstrated sufficient cause for the grant of bail. The applicant's legal team argued that the detention of their client in custody was not justified, as the conditions of detention were excessively punitive and not warranted by the seriousness of the charges. They further contended that the applicant was a suitable candidate for bail, given their background and the likelihood of their appearance in court if released.

The court addressed the fundamental legal questions of whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for bail and whether it had the jurisdiction to grant bail in the circumstances. In doing so, the court considered the applicant's criminal history, the nature and seriousness of the charges, the risk of re-offending, and the likelihood of the applicant absconding or interfering with witnesses. Additionally, the court examined its jurisdiction to grant bail under the relevant legislation and case law. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for bail, as the conditions of detention were disproportionate to the charges and the applicant's background indicated a likelihood of appearing in court if released.

The court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to grant bail and that the applicant had satisfied the criteria for bail. The applicant's legal team's arguments regarding the excessive punitive nature of the detention conditions and the applicant's suitability for bail were persuasive. The court considered the evidence and submissions presented and determined that the applicant's release on bail would not pose an unacceptable risk to the community or the administration of justice. The court granted bail, subject to the conditions set out in a draft order initialled and placed on the court file.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail is granted, on the conditions set out in a draft order initialled and placed on the court file

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.

CITATION:	Re Best [2014] QSC 125
PARTIES:	JOSHUA RUSSELL BEST (applicant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QLD) (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 4949/14
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application for bail
DELIVERED ON:	10 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 June 2014
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson J
ORDER:	Bail is granted, on the conditions set out in a draft order initialled and placed on the court file
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – before trial – generally – where the applicant must show cause why detention in custody is not justified CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – jurisdiction of Supreme Court – generally Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 9, s 16 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) R v Jurd [2007] QCA 228
COUNSEL:	R Frigo of counsel for the applicant Joshua Russell Best A J Robinson, solicitor, for the respondent DPP(Qld)
SOLICITORS:	Potts Lawyers for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent