The Queen v Robert Kevin Freeman (No. 2) - [2001] ACTSC 86

The Queen v Robert Kevin Freeman (No. 2)
[2001] ACTSC 86 (13 August 2001)

CATCHWORDS

BAIL – committal proceedings on several charges – defendant pleads guilty to some charges ‑ Magistrate remands in custody until committal proceedings on remaning chages are heard – interest of defendant in speedy resolution of charges to which he pleaded guilty especially where bail refused.

Bail Act 1992, s 9A, s 19, s 43
Magistrates Court Act 1930, s 70, s 90A

Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) FCA 921

No. SCC 211 of 2000

Judge: Miles CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 13 August 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No SCC 211 of 2000
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN
v
ROBERT KEVIN FREEMAN (No 2)

ORDER

Judge:  Miles CJ
Date:  13 August 2001
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application made by notice of motion dated 23 July 2001 be dismissed.

Bail be refused.

This matter comes before the Court by way of notice of motion dated 23 July 2001 seeking an order that the applicant be admitted to bail. Bail applications should be simple, often they are not, and this one is not.

The first question, in accordance with the decision of the Federal Court in Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) FCA 921 is whether in substance the proceedings constitute an application for a grant of bail under s 19 of the Bail Act 1992 (the Bail Act) or an application for review of a bail decision under s 43 of the Bail Act and otherwise under Part 4 of the Bail Act.

The applicant, Mr Freeman, appears in person and, quite understandably, is not concerned about which section he uses as long as he gets bail. As I have already indicated in argument, it seems that in respect of some of the offences in respect of which the applicant seeks his freedom, the application is in substance an application for a grant of bail, and in respect of others, it is an application for a review of a previous bail decision.

Again, in accordance with the decision of the Federal Court in Dunstan, the case reflects the need for judges and magistrates, court officials, prosecuting officers, informants and defence lawyers, to keep in mind very carefully and to record accurately the charges in respect of which a bail decision is made.

This applicant is facing a multitude of charges. Details, I gather, appear on a document which was handed up and which will be Exhibit A in the present proceedings.

It was acknowledged that the document may not be accurate and it was amended by me according to information from the bar table given by Ms de Veau, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, supplemented by evidence from the appellant himself which I accept as given truthfully to the best of his knowledge.

The material before me does not permit of a conclusion that at the time of the alleged…

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 The Queen v Robert Kevin Freeman (No. 2) 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: [2001] ACTSC 86
Decision Date: 13 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen has brought proceedings against Robert Kevin Freeman in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The charges stem from Freeman's alleged involvement in various criminal activities. Freeman has pleaded guilty to some of the charges, while the remaining charges are set to be heard in committal proceedings. Despite his guilty plea, the Magistrate has remanded Freeman in custody until the committal proceedings are completed. Freeman has applied for bail, particularly emphasising his interest in a speedy resolution of the charges to which he has already admitted guilt.

The legal issue before the court was whether the defendant was entitled to bail pending the outcome of the committal proceedings on the remaining charges. The court had to weigh the interest of the defendant in a timely resolution of the charges against the public interest and the need to ensure Freeman's appearance at court. Freeman argued that his early guilty plea on some charges should weigh in his favour, suggesting a reduced flight risk and an inclination to cooperate with the judicial process.

The court found that, while the defendant's early guilty plea was a mitigating factor, it was not sufficient to outweigh the overall considerations of public safety and the need to ensure Freeman's attendance at court for the remaining charges. The court held that the interests of justice required Freeman to remain in custody until the conclusion of the committal proceedings. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed, and Freeman was to remain in custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application made by notice of motion dated 23 July 2001 be dismissed.

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.