Re: Bloomfield - [2014] QSC 115

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re: Bloomfield [2014] QSC 115

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD BLOOMFIELD

(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS4601/14

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application for bail

DELIVERED ON:

30 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2014

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson J

ORDER:

The applicant is granted bail on the conditions set out in the draft order provided for the applicant and amended, with consent, by the respondent

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), ss 9, 16

Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 5

DPP v Bakir [2006] QCA 562

Re: Alajbegovic [2014] QSC 6

Re: Neale [2013] QSC 310

Williamson v DPP (Qld) [2001] 1 Qd R 99

COUNSEL:

Mr S Holt SC for the applicant

Mr D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

Wilson J: Mr Bloomfield, 23, has been custody since his arrest on 12 May 2014. He is charged with four offences: extortion, assault occasioning bodily harm in company, being knowingly present in a public place with participants in a criminal organisation, and the theft of a jumper.

The application is brought under the Bail Act 1980 (Qld). There is a presumed entitlement to bail 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 Bloomfield’s application is caught by these provisions, for two reasons: he is alleged to have threatened to use a firearm in the course of committing the offence of extortion (s 16(3)(c)); and, he is alleged to be or have been a member of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club which has been declared to be a criminal organisation[1] and a vicious lawless association.[2] These strictures apply even if, as he alleges, he renounced any membership of the Hells Angels in October 2013.[3]
[1]Criminal Code (Criminal Organisation) Regulation 2013 (Qld) Schedule.
[2]Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 5.
[3]Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 16(3A).

The fact this burden is now placed upon Mr Bloomfield does not, however, alter the question to…

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: Bloomfield

Details

AGLC: Re: Bloomfield [2014] QSC 115
Case: [2014] QSC 115
Decision Date: 30 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re: Bloomfield involved the applicant, Bloomfield, applying for bail before trial in the Supreme Court. Bloomfield was facing criminal charges and sought release from custody on bail pending the resolution of his case. The application was heard by a judge who had to determine whether the applicant had provided sufficient grounds to justify his detention in custody.

The primary legal issue was whether Bloomfield had demonstrated cause to show why his detention in custody was not justified. The court considered the principles governing bail applications, particularly the balance between the presumption of innocence and the public interest in ensuring that the accused attends their trial. The applicant needed to satisfy the court that there were exceptional circumstances warranting his release on bail.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It assessed the nature and seriousness of the charges against Bloomfield, the likelihood of him appearing in court if released, and any risks to the community if he were granted bail. The court concluded that the applicant had met the required threshold to show sufficient cause for his release on bail. It took into account the mitigating factors presented and imposed specific conditions to ensure Bloomfield's attendance at future court appearances and to address any community safety concerns.

The Supreme Court granted Bloomfield bail, subject to the conditions outlined in the draft order provided for the applicant and amended with consent by the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant is granted bail on the conditions set out in the draft order provided for the applicant and amended, with consent, by the respondent

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: Bloomfield [2014] QSC 115
PARTIES:	CHRISTOPHER HOWARD BLOOMFIELD (applicant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS4601/14
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application for bail
DELIVERED ON:	30 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 May 2014
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson J
ORDER:	The applicant is granted bail on the conditions set out in the draft order provided for the applicant and amended, with consent, by the respondent
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), ss 9, 16 Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 5 DPP v Bakir [2006] QCA 562 Re: Alajbegovic [2014] QSC 6 Re: Neale [2013] QSC 310 Williamson v DPP (Qld) [2001] 1 Qd R 99
COUNSEL:	Mr S Holt SC for the applicant Mr D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent