Tappin, Re an Application for Bail

Case [2006] QSC 117


[2006] QSC 117

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ATKINSON J

No 4202 of 2006

RE AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL
BY DEAN BARRY CHRISTOPHER TAPPIN

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/05/2006

ORDER

HER HONOUR: This is an application for bail by Dean Barry Christopher Tappin, who has been charged with one count of murder. Because of that charge against him, he may only be granted bail by the Supreme Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court pursuant to section 13 of the Bail Act.

When a defendant is charged with an offence to which section 13 applies, the Court shall refuse to grant bail unless the defendant shows cause why his detention in custody is not justified.

The justification for detaining someone in custody pending trial depends on whether or not there is an unacceptable risk that the defendant, if released on bail, would fail to appear and surrender into custody; would while released on bail, commit an offence or endanger the safety or welfare of a person who has claimed to be a victim of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or anyone else's safety or welfare; or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of Justice.

The Court is required to consider a number of matters that are relevant to determining the acceptability or otherwise of the risk.  Subsection 2 of section 16 sets out the following:

(1) the nature and seriousness of the offence;

(2) the character, antecedents, associations, home

environment, employment and background of the

defendant;

(3)  the history of any previous grants of bail to the

defendant;

(4)  the strength of the evidence against the defendant.

This is a serious offence and there is prima facie evidence at least of manslaughter against the defendant.  One could not, at this stage, say it was an overwhelmingly strong case of murder. 

Apart from the offences, it is necessary, therefore, to look at the personal circumstances of the defendant or the applicant for bail.  Those circumstances are that he has no relevant criminal history; that he resides in Queensland and all his ties appear to be within this jurisdiction.  He lives in a stable relationship in this jurisdiction and has children for whom he is responsible and with whom he lives.  He is currently 40 years of age.

He proposes a residential condition so that the police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will know where he is living at all times.  It will be necessary for him to report to the police on a regular basis to ensure that the police know of his whereabouts.

He has agreed to a condition that he shall not maintain employment as a security or crowd control provider whilst subject to bail.  This reduces the chances, of course, of any suggestion of re-offending.  Although his history, which does not suggest any previous propensity to violence, does suggest that the chances of re-offending are low in any event.

He has also agreed, as a term of bail, not to contact or attempt to contact either directly or indirectly any Crown or potential Crown witness; not to depart from Queensland without the prior written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and not to attend the premises of the hotel where the events are alleged to have happened, except in the company of his solicitor or barrister.

In those circumstances, there does not seem to me to be an unacceptable risk that if released on bail, on those conditions, that he would re-offend or fail to appear to answer his bail.  Added to that must be considered the fact that he would be likely to spend a considerable period in custody before his matter comes to Court and is dealt with. 

In those circumstances, I am prepared to grant bail for the reasons I have just given, in accordance with the proposed draft order, except with the addition of the word "Wednesday" between Monday and Friday in paragraph C of the order and the replacement of the word "a" before solicitor or barrister with the word "his" in paragraph G.

The reasons for granting bail, as I have said, will be these reasons which I have just dictated, not the reasons set out in the draft order.  The order will be as per draft as amended, together with these reasons.  I have initialled the amended draft order and I will place them with the papers.

...

-----

Details
AGLC
Tappin, Re an Application for Bail [2006] QSC 117
Case
[2006] QSC 117
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tappin, Re an Application for Bail, involved Dean Barry Christopher Tappin, who had been charged with one count of murder. Tappin applied for bail, which was subject to the Supreme Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court due to the serious nature of the offence under section 13 of the Bail Act. The Court's task was to determine whether there was an unacceptable risk that Tappin would fail to appear for trial, commit further offences, endanger the safety or welfare of individuals, or interfere with the administration of justice if released on bail. The Court was required to weigh the nature and seriousness of the offence against Tappin's personal circumstances, including his lack of criminal history, his stable home environment, and his responsibilities towards his children. The Court also considered Tappin's proposed bail conditions, which included restrictions on employment, regular police reporting, and prohibitions on contacting witnesses or leaving Queensland without permission.

Tappin's application was supported by various conditions intended to mitigate any potential risk. These included a requirement for Tappin to reside at a specified location, regular police reporting, a prohibition on employment in security or crowd control roles, and restrictions on contacting witnesses or visiting specific locations. The Court examined the strength of the evidence against Tappin, noting that while there was at least prima facie evidence of manslaughter, it was not yet an overwhelmingly strong case of murder. Given Tappin's personal circumstances and the proposed bail conditions, the Court found that the risk of re-offending or failure to appear was not unacceptable. The Court also noted the potential for Tappin to spend a considerable time in custody before his matter was heard, which factored into the decision to grant bail.

The Court granted bail, accepting the reasons provided for the application. The Court's decision was based on the balance of the seriousness of the offence against Tappin's personal circumstances and the proposed bail conditions. The Court made minor amendments to the proposed draft order, including specifying the days for police reporting and clarifying the requirement to be accompanied by a legal representative when visiting certain locations. The final order reflected the reasons given by the Court for granting bail, ensuring that Tappin complied with the specified conditions to mitigate any potential risks associated with his release.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.