Re JOD - [2022] QSC 260

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re JOD [2022] QSC 260

PARTIES:

NATHANIEL GILLIS

(applicant)

v

JOD

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

628 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland at Cairns

DELIVERED EX-TEMPORE ON:

20 October 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATES:

19 October 2022; 20 October 2022

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1. The application is granted.

2. The respondent’s bail is revoked.

3. Pursuant to s 19D Bail Act a warrant is to be issued for the apprehension of the respondent and it is directed that he be brought before the Magistrates Court and that the warrant so indicate.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL – where Police Prosecutions applied pursuant to s 19B(2) Bail Act 1980 (Qld) for a review of a Magistrate’s decision to grant the respondent juvenile bail – where the charges for which the respondent was granted bail included burglary and unlawful use of motor vehicles – where at the time of those offences the respondent was on bail for four counts of robbery whilst armed in company – where bail was granted on the condition the respondent reside at a named address and must not be found away from that address between 6pm and 6am unless with his grandmother – where the respondent had a significant criminal history of similar offending – where the respondent was found not to be at the residence several occasions during the curfew time – whether burglary and unlawful use of motor vehicles by juveniles endangers the safety of the community – whether if released there is an unacceptable risk that the child will commit an offence that endangers the safety of the community – whether it is not practicable to adequately mitigate that risk by imposing particular conditions – whether the bail granted to the respondent should be revoked

Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 19B(2)
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 48AA(4), s 48AAA

DPP v Filippa [2005] Qd R 587
Re JTL [2021] QSC 211

COUNSEL:

N Gillis (sol) for the applicant
K Robinson (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Police Prosecutions (Qld) for the applicant
ATSILS for the respondent

A Duncan for Youth Justice

HENRY J: The applicant seeks review of a Magistrate’s decision to release the 14 year old male respondent on bail.

The respondent has an appalling juvenile criminal history including many offences of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, stealing, trespass, burglary, and entering premises and committing indictable offences. He has received multiple cautions, reprimands, good behaviour bonds, Restorative Justice Court Diversion referrals, probation orders and community service orders. Earlier this year between 25 March and 17 May he served 53 days detention as his sentence for offending including four burglaries, one attempted burglary, five unlawful use of motor vehicles, two dangerous operation of motor vehicles, and charges of possession of implements and receiving tainted property.

The charges the subject of this review, his guilt of which is admitted, continue his…

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 JOD

Details

AGLC: Re JOD [2022] QSC 260
Case: [2022] QSC 260
Decision Date: 20 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Police Prosecutions sought a review of a Magistrate’s decision to grant bail to the respondent, a juvenile, under section 19B(2) of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld). The respondent, who was already on bail for four counts of armed robbery, had been granted bail for charges of burglary and unlawful use of motor vehicles. The bail conditions required the respondent to reside at a specific address and adhere to a curfew from 6pm to 6am, except when accompanied by his grandmother. Despite these conditions, the respondent was found to be absent from the residence during the curfew on several occasions. The Prosecutions argued that the granting of bail for the new charges endangered the safety of the community, that there was an unacceptable risk the respondent would commit further offences, and that it was not practicable to adequately mitigate that risk through bail conditions.

The court considered whether the respondent’s bail should be revoked based on the seriousness of the new charges, the respondent’s history of similar offending, and his non-compliance with the bail conditions. The Prosecutions emphasised the risk posed by the respondent’s repeated breach of bail conditions and the nature of the new charges. The court found that the respondent’s criminal history, combined with his non-compliance with bail conditions, indicated a significant risk that he would reoffend if released on bail. This risk was deemed unacceptable, and the court concluded that it was not practicable to impose further conditions that could adequately mitigate that risk.

Consequently, the court granted the application for review and revoked the respondent’s bail. A warrant was issued for the respondent’s apprehension, directing that he be brought before the Magistrates Court. The decision underscores the court's obligation to ensure that bail conditions effectively mitigate the risk to the community posed by the accused, especially in cases involving juveniles with a history of serious offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is granted.

2. The respondent’s bail is revoked.

3. Pursuant to s 19D Bail Act a warrant is to be issued for the apprehension of the respondent and it is directed that he be brought before the Magistrates Court and that the warrant so indicate.

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 JOD [2022] QSC 260
PARTIES:	NATHANIEL GILLIS (applicant) v JOD (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	628 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Cairns
DELIVERED EX-TEMPORE ON:	20 October 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATES:	19 October 2022; 20 October 2022
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDERS:	1. The application is granted. 2. The respondent’s bail is revoked. 3. Pursuant to s 19D *Bail Act* a warrant is to be issued for the apprehension of the respondent and it is directed that he be brought before the Magistrates Court and that the warrant so indicate.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL – where Police Prosecutions applied pursuant to s 19B(2) Bail Act 1980 (Qld) for a review of a Magistrate’s decision to grant the respondent juvenile bail – where the charges for which the respondent was granted bail included burglary and unlawful use of motor vehicles – where at the time of those offences the respondent was on bail for four counts of robbery whilst armed in company – where bail was granted on the condition the respondent reside at a named address and must not be found away from that address between 6pm and 6am unless with his grandmother – where the respondent had a significant criminal history of similar offending – where the respondent was found not to be at the residence several occasions during the curfew time – whether burglary and unlawful use of motor vehicles by juveniles endangers the safety of the community – whether if released there is an unacceptable risk that the child will commit an offence that endangers the safety of the community – whether it is not practicable to adequately mitigate that risk by imposing particular conditions – whether the bail granted to the respondent should be revoked Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 19B(2) Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 48AA(4), s 48AAA DPP v Filippa [2005] Qd R 587 Re JTL [2021] QSC 211
COUNSEL:	N Gillis (sol) for the applicant K Robinson (sol) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Police Prosecutions (Qld) for the applicant ATSILS for the respondent A Duncan for Youth Justice