The Queen v Andrew Reeves - [2011] ACTSC 140

THE QUEEN v ANDREW REEVES
[2011] ACTSC 140 (11 August 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – bail – interpreting the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) consistent with human rights – bail granted.

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – bail – weighing up the considerations under the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) when granting bail – bail granted.

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 311
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 60
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
Bail Act1992 (ACT)

Burton v R (Re an Application for Bail) (1974) 3 ACTR 77

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 316 of 2010

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 11 August 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 316 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

THE QUEEN
V
ANDREW REEVES

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  11 August 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Mr Reeves be granted bail, to attend at his trial on 6 October 2011 on the following conditions:
(a)that he reside at 8 Blaxcell Street Macquarie, ACT;
(b)that he is to be subject to supervision by the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the officer delegated to supervise him, including attending for urinalysis at least once every week;
(c)that he is to attend to report to the officer in charge of Belconnen Police Station daily between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm;
(d)he is to continue work with Connections and attend that agency when appropriate;
(e)he is not to approach or contact directly or indirectly [names provided];
(f)he is not to attend at Northbourne Flats;
(g)he is not to assault, intimidate or threaten [name provided];
(h)he is to abstain from the use of alcohol and illicit drugs; and
(i)he is to submit to breath analysis and urinalysis when required by the officer delegated to supervise him or a police officer.

The applicant for bail, Andrew Reeves, has been charged with serious offences of committing burglary with intent to cause harm, an offence under s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) that carries a maximum penalty of 1,400 penalty units (that is a fine of $154,000) or fourteen years imprisonment and committing an act of indecency without consent, an offence under s 60 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) that carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. These offences are alleged to have occurred on 21 April 2010.

After his arrest in respect of these offences, Mr Reeves was remanded in custody. On 14 September 2010 he was committed for trial to this court. He applied for bail on 23 September 2010 and bail was granted with conditions about attending at a drug rehabilitation centre. He left that centre on 21 November 2010. He then reported to Civic Police Station, in part compliance with the conditions of his bail, noting that he was in breach of bail. On 29 November 2010 he appeared on the breach of bail and was remanded in custody until…

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 The Queen v Andrew Reeves

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Andrew Reeves [2011] ACTSC 140
Case: [2011] ACTSC 140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Andrew Reeves involved the accused, Andrew Reeves, who was charged with serious offences including burglary with intent to cause harm and committing an act of indecency without consent. The court was required to decide whether to grant Reeves bail, taking into account the nature of the alleged offences, his history of breaching bail conditions, and the considerations under the Bail Act 1992 (ACT). The key issues included the appropriate balance between the accused's rights and the need to protect the community, as well as the relevance of Reeves's personal circumstances and support systems.

Refshauge J, in delivering the judgment, carefully considered the objectives of the Bail Act, which are to ensure the accused attends trial, does not commit further offences, and does not interfere with witnesses or evidence. The judge acknowledged the challenges Reeves faced in complying with bail conditions, including addiction and difficult living circumstances. Despite multiple breaches of bail conditions, the judge found that the recent breaches did not materially increase the risk to the community. The judge also noted the imminence of the trial date as a factor favouring the detention of an accused who is unable to comply with bail conditions. However, the judge decided that the breaches were not unexpected given Reeves's circumstances and that the proposed bail conditions were reasonable and capable of being complied with.

The court granted Reeves bail to attend his trial on 6 October 2011, subject to strict conditions including residence, supervision, daily reporting to police, abstaining from drugs and alcohol, and refraining from certain contacts and locations. The judge emphasized that further non-compliance with bail conditions would likely result in the revocation of bail and Reeves being remanded in custody.

Orders