Stuart William Palmer v Director of Public Prosecutions

[2023] QCA 110

[2023] QCA 110

COURT OF APPEAL

MULLINS P
LIVESEY AJA
CALLAGHAN J

Appeal No 11413 of 2022
Appeal No 12566 of 2022
Appeal No 472 of 2023
SC No 9841 of 2022
SC No 11403 of 2022
SC No 12848 of 2022

STUART WILLIAM PALMER  Appellant

v

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS  Respondent

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 29 MAY 2023

JUDGMENT

1. MULLINS P:  Mr Palmer was charged with five offences committed over 30 and 31 July 2022: enter dwelling and commit indictable offence; unlawful use of a motor vehicle; evasion offence; driving without a licence (disqualified by court order) and possessing a dangerous drug.

2. He applied for bail on 1 September 2022 before Williams J who refused to grant bail on the basis that Mr Palmer was an unacceptable risk of reoffending whilst on bail, a risk of failing to appear, and a risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any person.  That refusal is the subject of appeal number 11413 of 2022.

3. Mr Palmer renewed his application on 6 October 2022 before Jackson J on the basis that there was a material change of circumstances.  Jackson J concluded that there was not a material change of circumstances and refused the application.  This is the subject of appeal number 12566 of 2022.

4. Mr Palmer renewed his application again before Boddice J on 23 December 2022, on the basis that there had been a material change of circumstances since he was refused bail by Williams J and Jackson J.  Boddice J concluded the asserted changes did not amount to a material change of circumstances relevant to the risk associated with a grant of bail and refused the application.  That refusal is the subject of appeal number 472 of 2023.

5. On 19 January 2023 the police offered no evidence in respect of the burglary and the unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and those charges were dismissed.  Mr Palmer was ultimately granted bail in the Magistrates Court for the remaining three offences on 17 April 2023.  This occurred after Mr Palmer had successfully appealed in this Court (in CA number 174 of 2022) in respect of the sentence imposed in the District Court on 22 June 2022 that he was also serving at the time he made each of the three bail applications to the Supreme Court.  The respondent informed the Court at the commencement of the hearing of these appeals that Mr Palmer was finally dealt with in the Magistrates Court for the three offences on 16 May 2023.

6. There is no utility in hearing the appeals.  Although the appeals could be struck out for the failure of Mr Palmer to appear, on the basis that there is no utility in hearing the appeals, the appropriate order in each appeal is: Appeal dismissed.

7. LIVESEY AJA:  I agree.

8. CALLAGHAN J:  I agree.

9. MULLINS P:  So the order of the Court is: Appeal dismissed.