Steven Paul Beattie v The Queen - [2011] ACTCA 18

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

STEVEN PAUL BEATTIE v THE QUEEN
[2011] ACTCA 18 (22 September 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – bail – jurisdiction of Court of Appeal – need for special and exceptional circumstances – family hardship – bail not granted.

Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 12B, 20B, 57AA
Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s 48A
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 18

R v Eisenach [2011] ACTCA 2
Chamberlain v The Queen (1982) 69 FLR 445
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 1) (1983) 153 CLR 514

Sherd v The Queen [2011] ACTCA 17
Re Clarkson [1986] VR 583
R v Wilson (1994) 34 NSWLR 1
Re Kulari [1978] VR 276
Re Pennant [1997] 2 VR 85
Robinson v The Queen (1991) 65 ALJR 519

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 35 of 2011
No. SCC 19 of 2011

Judge: Refshauge J
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 22 September 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 35 of 2011
  )          No. SCC 19 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:STEVEN PAUL BEATTIE

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  22 September 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 35 of 2011
  )          No. SCC 19 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: STEVEN PAUL BEATTIE
Appellant

AND:                THE QUEEN


Respondent

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  22 September 2011
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

REFSHAUGE J:

Steven Paul Beattie was, with others, involved in an altercation in which he used what looked like a machete, his fists and his feet to injure three victims who were struck numerous times on their bodies and faces and left bleeding heavily from wounds to their faces and heads.

He was charged with one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in respect of each victim, that is three charges, and pleaded guilty to each in the Magistrates Court where he was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.

On 22 June 2011, he appeared before Nield AJ and adhered to his plea of guilty. He was sentenced on the first count to imprisonment for two years from the date of sentence, on the second count to imprisonment for one year and seven months to date from 22 April 2012, that is cumulative as to five months on the sentence on the first count, and on the third count to one year and seven months imprisonment to date from 22 August 2012, that is cumulative as to four months on the sentence on the second count. The total sentence was two years and nine months…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Steven Paul Beattie v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] ACTCA 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for bail pending appeal made by Steven Paul Beattie to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Beattie had been sentenced in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to a total of two years and nine months imprisonment for three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and he was appealing this sentence.

The Court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to grant bail pending appeal and, if so, whether Mr Beattie had established the necessary special or exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of bail. The grounds of appeal included that the sentencing judge gave inadequate weight to favourable subjective factors and excessive weight to the objective seriousness of the offences, failed to give reasons for declining periodic detention, and that the sentence imposed was harsh.

The Court affirmed that a single judge of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant bail. However, it held that to succeed in an application for bail pending appeal, an applicant must demonstrate special or exceptional circumstances. These circumstances must address whether the appeal would be rendered futile by the time it is heard, or whether there are arguable prospects of success. In this instance, the likely hearing date for the appeal meant that a substantial portion of Mr Beattie's sentence would not be served before the appeal was heard, and the prospects of success on the grounds raised were not considered strong enough to constitute special or exceptional circumstances. While family hardship, including a pregnant partner suffering from depression and insomnia, and a mother relapsing to alcohol use, was presented as the primary ground for seeking bail, the Court found that such hardship, while regrettable, did not rise to the level of special or exceptional circumstances required for the grant of bail pending appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Beattie's application for bail.

Orders