Tasmania v Wooders - [2022] TASSC 15

[2022] TASSC 15

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Wooders [2022] TASSC 15

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  WOODERS, Ann Louise

FILE NO:  698/2021
DELIVERED ON:  Monday, 28 February 2022
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:  14 and 22 February 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Procedure – Bail – Recognizances – Forfeiture and estreatment – Relief from estreatment and reduction of liability – Recognizance of $10,000 for man who breached curfew condition – Forfeiture of $7,000 ordered.

Bail Act1994 (Tas), ss 7, 20.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3005]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  C Darvell
             Respondent:  In person
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2022] TASSC 15
Number of paragraphs: 22

Serial No 15/2022
File No 698/2021

STATE OF TASMANIA v ANN LOUISE WOODERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J

28 February 2022

While he was on bail for indictable offences, Robert Williams contravened the conditions of his bail by failing, on three specified occasions, to comply with a curfew. The respondent, Ann Wooders, had entered into a recognizance under the Bail Act 1994, s 7(5)(b), in the sum of $10,000, to secure Mr Williams' compliance. The State applies for an order under s 20 of the Bail Act that all or part of the recognizance be forfeited to the Crown.
Mr Williams was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance, wounding and aggravated burglary, all alleged to have been committed on 21 June 2020. On 1 July 2020 he appeared in the Court of Petty Sessions. He pleaded not guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. He was admitted to bail by a magistrate to appear in the Supreme Court on 12 October 2020. The bail order was made against the opposition of the prosecution. Conditions were imposed on the grant of bail which included that:
·Mr Williams live at a specified address in Waverley and be present at the address between 10pm and 7am;
·Mr Williams not contact a named person; and
·the respondent provide a "cash surety" in the sum of $10,000.
The order of committal, signed by Mr Williams though not by the respondent, recorded the surety condition in these terms:
"That Ann Louise Wooders has paid to the Clerk of Petty Sessions at Launceston the sum of $10,000, to be forfeited if you do not comply with these bail orders."
The amount of the surety was paid to the Clerk of Petty Sessions on 23 September 2020. On the same day the respondent signed a document headed "Surety Recognizance" in terms that she had:
"… offered myself as surety for the appearance of Robert Craig Williams, a person about to be granted bail under the Justices Act 1959, who is required to appear at the Supreme Court at Cameron Street, Launceston, and I acknowledge that if he does not appear as specified in his bail document or if he fails to comply with a condition of his bail I…

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 Tasmania v Wooders

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Wooders [2022] TASSC 15
Case: [2022] TASSC 15
Decision Date: Monday, 28 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tasmania versus Wooders, the respondent, a convicted individual, sought relief from the forfeiture of a portion of his recognizance following a breach of his bail conditions. Wooders was originally granted bail on the condition that he adhere to a curfew, among other terms. Upon breaching this condition, a sum of $7,000 from his $10,000 recognizance was forfeited. Wooders petitioned the court for relief from the estreatment, arguing that the forfeiture was disproportionate given his financial circumstances and the nature of the breach.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the forfeiture of the recognizance was justified in the circumstances and if so, whether relief from the estreatment could be granted under the relevant statutory provisions. The court considered the nature of the breach, the circumstances of the respondent at the time of the breach, and the proportionality of the forfeiture relative to the offence committed. The court was also required to assess whether the respondent's financial hardship warranted any relief from the estreatment.

The court found that the breach of the bail condition was serious enough to warrant a forfeiture of part of the recognizance. However, upon assessing Wooders' financial situation and the proportionality of the penalty, the court determined that the forfeiture was excessive. The court exercised its discretion to grant relief from the estreatment, reducing the liability to a lesser amount deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The court concluded that while the breach was serious, the original forfeiture was disproportionate and thus ordered a reduction in the amount forfeited.

The court's final order was that the respondent, Wooders, would only be liable for a reduced amount of $3,000 of the original $10,000 recognizance. This decision reflected the court's consideration of the nature of the breach, the respondent's financial circumstances, and the proportionality of the penalty imposed.

Orders