Rus v The Queen - [2001] WASC 68

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: RUS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASC 68

CORAM: ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD: 2 MARCH 2001

DELIVERED : 2 MARCH 2001

FILE NO/S: MCS 78 of 2000

BETWEEN: GHEORGE RUS
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Application for bail - Second application to Supreme Court - First application refused - Provision of prosecution brief for committal - Assessment of strength of prosecution case - Whether changed circumstances

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), Part B, par 4 of Schedule 1

Result:

Bail refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr P A Dunn QC
Respondent: Ms C A O'Brien

Solicitors:

Applicant: Mr Laurie Levy
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Rus v The Queen [2000] WASC 297

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

ROBERTS-SMITH J: This is an application by way of notice of motion for bail, the notice of motion being dated 22 February 2001. The application is made in relation to three complaints: the first, number 42615 of 2000 which charges one offence of possession of heroin with intent to sell or supply on 3 September 2000 (the quantity apparently being 7 to 10 ounces); the second, number 42616 of 2000, possession of heroin with intent to sell or supply on 12 September 2000 (an unknown quantity of heroin); third, number 42617 of 2000, supplying heroin on 2 October 2000, (the quantity alleged being 110.47 grams).
This applicant has previously applied to this court for bail and I heard that application on 28 November last year and refused it. My reasons were given that day: Rus v The Queen [2000] WASC 297. At [43] to [48] of my reasons given on that occasion I identified the major factors then influencing me as: first, the seriousness of the offences charged and the likelihood of a substantial sentence of imprisonment if the applicant were to be convicted; second, the strength of the prosecution case (which included telephone intercepts) and third, the prospect that the applicant might abscond if released to bail.
Being a second application for bail made to this court this application falls to be decided under Part B par 4 of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1982 (WA). Under that provision the applicant must satisfy me of one of a number of things: first of all, that new facts have been discovered, new circumstances have arisen or the circumstances have changed since bail was previously refused or that the applicant failed to adequately present his case for bail on the previous occasion or if bail was granted subject to a home detention condition, that has been complied with for a period of 1 month or more. In the instant case the application is based on the first of those; namely, that new circumstances have arisen or circumstances have changed since bail was refused on the last occasion.
The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant sworn 22 February 2001 and Mr Dunn QC who appears for…

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 Rus v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rus v The Queen [2001] WASC 68
Case: [2001] WASC 68
Decision Date: 2 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rus applied for bail in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant was facing charges of armed robbery and dangerous driving. The first application for bail had been refused. The prosecution had provided a brief for committal, and Rus argued there were changed circumstances warranting a reconsideration of bail. The court needed to determine if there were any new developments or changed circumstances that warranted a reconsideration of the bail application, and if the prosecution's case had been sufficiently robust to justify continued detention.

The court examined the strength of the prosecution's case, as outlined in the committal brief, and whether there had been any significant changes in circumstances since the first bail application was refused. The court considered the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending if bail was granted. The prosecution had demonstrated a strong case, with detailed evidence and witness statements supporting the charges against the applicant. The court also noted that there were no new or significantly changed circumstances presented by the applicant that would warrant a reconsideration of the bail decision.

Consequently, the court found that the prosecution had made out a sufficiently strong case for the applicant to remain in custody. The court also found that there were no changed circumstances that warranted a reconsideration of the bail application. The application for bail was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody until the conclusion of the trial.

Orders