The Queen v Warren James Taber Summary

[2000] QCA 122

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA

[R v Taber]

CA No 76 of 2000

THE QUEEN

WARREN JAMES TABER Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/04/2000

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an appeal against the Far Northern Judge's refusal of the appellant's application for bail. The application related to charges of carrying on the business of trafficking in amphetamines over a period of two and a half years, the supplying and possession of dangerous drugs and receiving.

It was up to the appellant to show cause why he should be granted bail because the offence of trafficking with which he was charged in relation to the time period was partially committed as is alleged while the appellant was on bail for an offence of obstructing the course of justice.

The learned Judge refused bail because in light of the appellant's background and the apparent strength of the Crown case and a perceived risk of his contacting Crown witnesses the Judge was not persuaded that the appellant had shown cause. The Judge expressed a "very serious concern" of re-offending.

The appellant has a not insubstantial past criminal history. He is not in employment and if granted bail says that he will reside at a motel in Cairns. There does, to me, appear to be a substantial Crown case against him. Adding these circumstances to his prior criminal history the judge was, in my view, entitled to take the approach he did.

This is an area in which the appeal court should be especially concerned about second guessing the assessment of a primary Judge. No error has, to my mind, been shown in that Judge's discretionary approach in this case and his conclusion does indeed seem to be reasonable and justified. I would dismiss the appeal.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THOMAS JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appeal is dismissed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal, Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Thomas JA heard an appeal brought by Warren James Taber against the refusal of his bail application by a judge of the Far Northern Court. The appellant was facing charges of trafficking in amphetamines over a period of two and a half years, supplying and possessing dangerous drugs, and receiving. The appellant's previous charges included obstructing the course of justice, which had been committed in part while he was on bail. The appellant's bail application was denied on the basis of his criminal history, the strength of the Crown's case against him, and the risk of him contacting Crown witnesses. The learned judge was not convinced that the appellant had shown cause for bail, citing a "very serious concern" of re-offending.

The court was required to determine whether the refusal of bail by the Far Northern Judge was justified and whether any error had been made in the judge's discretionary approach. The appellant argued that he should be granted bail, as he planned to reside at a motel in Cairns if released. The Crown argued that the appellant's criminal history, lack of employment, and the strength of the Crown's case warranted the denial of bail. The court had to balance these factors and assess whether the judge's decision was reasonable and justified.

The Court of Appeal found that the Far Northern Judge was entitled to take the approach he did, given the appellant's criminal history, the strength of the Crown's case, and the risk of re-offending. The appeal court noted that it should be especially cautious in second-guessing the assessment of a primary judge in matters concerning bail. The Court of Appeal concluded that no error had been shown in the judge's discretionary approach, and the refusal of bail was reasonable and justified. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to dismiss the appeal, upholding the decision of the Far Northern Judge to refuse bail to the appellant. The court emphasized the importance of respecting the primary judge's assessment in matters concerning bail and found no grounds for overturning the decision.

The Queen v Warren James Taber

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established