The Queen v Wilson-Anderson - [2020] NTSC 53

CITATION: The Queen v Wilson-Anderson [2020] NTSC 53
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

WILSON-ANDERSON, Michael Scott

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:21922473
DELIVERED:  21 August 2020
HEARING DATE:  21 August 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Riley AJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - BAIL - Application for bail - presumption against bail - criteria to be considered in bail applications - onus of proof lies with the Applicant to satisfy the Court that bail should not be refused - application for bail refused - interference with witnesses
Bail Act s 7A, s 24
R v Williams [2012] NTSC 47, followed.
R v Wilson [2011] NTSC 15, not followed
Suttie v The Queen [2013] NTSC 37, R v JDT [2011] NTSC 39, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:J Adams
Respondent:  J Ibbotson
Solicitors:
Applicant:J Adams
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  Ril2001
Number of pages:  10

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Wilson-Anderson [2020] NTSC 53

No. 21922473
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

MICHAEL SCOTT WILSON-ANDERSON

CORAM: RILEY AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 21 August 2020)

This is an application for bail by Michael Scott Wilson-Anderson who has been charged with one count of intentionally supplying a commercial quantity of cannabis plant material between 1 January 2016 and 21 December 2017.
The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 14 years. This means that, pursuant to s 7A of the Bail Act, there is a presumption against bail and bail must not be granted unless the court is satisfied that bail should be granted. The matters to be considered in that process are those set out in s 24 of the Bail Act.
The applicant was arrested on 20 December 2017 and granted bail from that date until 29 June 2020. The matter came on for trial in the Supreme Court on 29 June 2020 but the jury was discharged on 30 June 2020 and the applicant was remanded in custody where he has remained. His trial is now listed to commence in a little over three and a half months, on 7 December 2020.
The Crown case against the applicant is that for a period of approximately two years he and a co-offender, JT, established and operated a commercial cannabis supply network in the Darwin region. The cannabis was sourced by the applicant in South Australia and transported to Darwin where he and JT would supply it, by the pound, to persons unknown. The Crown says that JT has provided a sworn statement detailing the drug operation conducted with the applicant in which JT estimates the pair have been involved in drug transactions of a value of at least $1 million in the two-year period prior to his arrest.
The Crown alleges that on 22 November 2017 JT and another male, JJ, drove a Holden Commodore south along the Stuart Highway.…

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 Wilson-Anderson

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Wilson-Anderson [2020] NTSC 53
Case: [2020] NTSC 53
Decision Date: 21 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Wilson-Anderson involved the defendant, Wilson-Anderson, facing criminal charges and applying for bail. The decision was handed down by the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Wilson-Anderson should be granted bail pending his trial, considering the strength of the prosecution's case and the risk of witness interference if released.

In addressing the bail application, the court first considered the likelihood of Wilson-Anderson appearing in court if granted bail. Evidence suggested that he had strong ties to the local community, including family residing in Darwin, a stable job, and a history of complying with bail conditions. Despite these factors, the court noted the strength of the prosecution's case, with two witnesses and inculpating forensic evidence, indicating a significant incentive for Wilson-Anderson to flee if convicted.

The court further assessed the impact of Wilson-Anderson's continued detention, noting he had been in custody for approximately five months at the time of the hearing. Although the conditions of his remand were not ideal, they did not appear excessively harsh. More critically, the court considered the risk of witness interference, particularly in light of an alleged incident during a previous hearing where Wilson-Anderson reportedly made comments to a key witness. This raised substantial concerns about the potential for witness tampering if he were released on bail.

Ultimately, the court denied the bail application, primarily due to the significant risk of witness interference. The evidence suggested a strong likelihood that Wilson-Anderson would interfere with witnesses if granted bail, outweighing the other factors considered in his favour.

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

This approach is consistent with that adopted by Blokland J in R v JDT [2011] NTSC 39 and by Hiley J in Suttie v The Queen [2013] NTSC 37. I do not follow the construction referred to in R v Wilson [2011] NTSC 15.Section 24 considerations The first of the criteria to be considered is the probability of whether or not the applicant will appear in court in respect of the offence. The evidence reveals the applicant is a long-term resident of Darwin and his mother, siblings and members of his wider family also reside here. His partner resides here with the applicant’s mother. He has no prior convictions. He has worked for his most recent employer since March 2018 and employment is available to him with that employer should he be released. He had been on bail prior to the previous hearing, he turned up for that hearing and had honoured his bail conditions. There is no suggestion that he has not complied with bail obligations in the past. His brother has offered a $10,000 cash deposit to guarantee his attendance at court on this occasion. On the other hand, based upon the evidence available to me, and without having heard from the applicant, it would seem this is a fairly strong Crown case. This view may change in light of material yet to be produced to the court but the presence of two witnesses who give direct evidence of the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offending, considered along with the inculpating forensic evidence, leads me to that conclusion. In the event of a conviction, and accepting for present purposes the description of the nature of the operation provided by the Crown, it is likely the applicant is facing a significant term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding his strong ties to the Territory there would be a real incentive for him to flee the jurisdiction. The next matter for consideration is the interests of the applicant. He has been in custody since 30 June 2020 and the trial is set for 7 December 2020. At that time he would have spent just under six months in custody. Although it has not been argued I accept that conditions on remand are not ideal and that there are additional restrictions in light of the COVID-19 pandemic which must have an adverse effect on prison conditions. However, there is nothing in the material placed before me to suggest that the conditions on remand as experienced by the applicant are especially onerous. It is not suggested that the applicant needs to be free to prepare for his appearance in court or to obtain legal advice. It is not suggested that he needs to be free for any other lawful purpose. I do not regard the desire of the employer for the applicant to assist in their business as creating a relevant need for the applicant to be free. The balance of the criteria referred to in s 24(1)(b) of the Bail Act do not appear to be relevant. A matter of significant concern is the risk that the applicant would, if released on bail, interfere with witnesses. This concern arises out of the incident alleged to have taken place in the luncheon adjournment on 29 June 2020. If proven, the comments alleged to be made by the applicant to one of the most significant of the Crown witnesses creates a very real concern regarding the potential for interference with witnesses.