RUS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASC 297

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 297
Case No:	MCR:78/2000	Heard:	28 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	28/11/00
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application refused
PDF Version

Parties:	GHEORGHE RUS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Application for bail Bail refused by Court of Petty Sessions Three charges of possessing heroin Applicant with no ties to State Risk of applicant absconding Seriousness of charges Strength of prosecution case
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982, s 22, Sch 1, cl 1(a)(i), cl 1(c), cl 1(g), cl 3
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : RUS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASC 297 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 28 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 28 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : MCR 78 of 2000 BETWEEN : GHEORGHE RUS

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Application for bail - Bail refused by Court of Petty Sessions - Three charges of possessing heroin - Applicant with no ties to State - Risk of applicant absconding - Seriousness of charges - Strength of prosecution case

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982, s 22, Sch 1, cl 1(a)(i), cl 1(c), cl 1(g), cl 3

Result:

Application refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr P Dunn QC

Respondent : Ms L Black

Solicitors:

Applicant : Laurie Levy

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This is an application for bail by notice of motion filed on 20 November 2000. The application is in respect of a number of charges on complaint in the Court of Petty Sessions; namely, one count of possession of heroin with intent to sell or supply on 3 September this year (the amount alleged being between 7 and 10 ounces), one count of possession of heroin with intent to sell or supply on 12 September 2000, (unknown quantity), and one count of supplying heroin on 2 October this year, (the allegation being that was some 110.47 grams).

2 I have before me and I have read the affidavit of Gheorghe Rus sworn on 16 November this year in which Mr Rus, amongst other things, briefly sets out the procedural history of the matter. I will return to that in just a moment. Annexed to that affidavit is a copy of the police statement of material facts.

3 Put briefly, the facts alleged by the prosecution in relation to these charges are that on 2 September this year a person placed an order with the applicant's alleged co-offender Mocanu and with the applicant, for between seven and 10 ounces of heroin. On 12 September the same person placed an order for more heroin. Both of those orders were allegedly filled by Mocanu and the applicant. Another order was allegedly placed on 2 October and at about 4.30pm on that date the applicant was a passenger in a Holden Commodore sedan which…

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 [2000] WASC 297
Case: [2000] WASC 297
Decision Date: 28 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Rus, applied for bail in the Court of Petty Sessions against a decision made by a Magistrate refusing bail. Rus was facing three charges of possessing heroin. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the refusal of bail by the Magistrate was justified. This involved considering the risk of the applicant absconding, the seriousness of the charges, and the strength of the prosecution's case.

The court examined the factors relevant to bail, including the applicant's ties to the community, the likelihood of the applicant absconding, and the potential impact of their release on the community. The court found that Rus had no ties to the state, which increased the risk of absconding. Additionally, the seriousness of the charges, specifically the possession of heroin, and the strength of the prosecution's case were significant factors. The court concluded that these factors outweighed any considerations in favour of granting bail.

The court refused the application for bail. It held that the risk of Rus absconding, coupled with the seriousness of the charges and the strength of the prosecution's case, justified the initial refusal of bail by the Magistrate. The court's decision was based on a careful assessment of the relevant factors and the need to ensure public safety and the proper administration of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

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.