TOWNSEND -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASC 63

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 63
Case No:	MCS:21/2000	Heard:	10 & 13 MARCH 2000
Coram:	SCOTT J	Delivered:	16/03/00
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application refused
PDF Version

Parties:	TROY ADAM TOWNSEND THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Application for bail Applicant eligible to apply for work release order Bail previously fixed in relation to numerous charges Application for Sch 1 cl 3A of the Bail Act 1982 Applicant on bail for serious offences when further serious offence committed Whether overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy qualify as a further offence Applicant likely to commit further offences if released on bail Exceptional circumstances not established and bail not appropriate in any event
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 Sch 1 cl 3A(1), Sch 1 Part C cl (1) Misuse of Drugs Act s 6(2)
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : TOWNSEND -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASC 63 CORAM : SCOTT J HEARD : 10 & 13 MARCH 2000 DELIVERED : 16 MARCH 2000 FILE NO/S : MCS 21 of 2000 BETWEEN : TROY ADAM TOWNSEND

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Application for bail - Applicant eligible to apply for work release order - Bail previously fixed in relation to numerous charges - Application for Sch 1 cl 3A of the Bail Act 1982 - Applicant on bail for serious offences when further serious offence committed - Whether overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy qualify as a further offence - Applicant likely to commit further offences if released on bail - Exceptional circumstances not established and bail not appropriate in any event

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 Sch 1 cl 3A(1), Sch 1 Part C cl (1)

Misuse of Drugs Act s 6(2)

Result:

Application refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr P C Dane QC & Mr B R Jackson

Respondent : Mr A S Derrick

Solicitors:

Applicant : Pryles & Defteros

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 SCOTT J: By a complaint made on 22 November 1999 the applicant was charged with an offence which alleged that on 17 November 1999 at Warwick, the applicant had in his possession a prohibited drug, namely, heroin, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Whilst the complaint is not clear, it would appear that the applicant came before the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on 23 November 1999 and that the matter was adjourned until 1 December 1999 upon which date he pleaded not guilty. The charge was further adjourned until 15 December 1999 when the applicant failed to appear and a bench warrant issued. It is common ground, for reasons that I will outline, that as at 15 December 1999 the applicant was in custody on other charges and for some reason was not brought before the court.…

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 Townsend v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Townsend v The Queen [2000] WASC 63
Case: [2000] WASC 63
Decision Date: 16 MARCH 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the applicant, Townsend, who applied for bail from the Supreme Court of Victoria. Townsend was already on bail for several serious offences when a further serious offence was committed. The court was required to consider whether Townsend was eligible to apply for a work release order under Schedule 1, clause 3A of the Bail Act 1982, and if bail was appropriate given the nature and seriousness of the offences committed. The legal issues included whether the overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy qualified as a further offence and whether there were exceptional circumstances that would warrant bail. The court held that the overt acts did qualify as a further offence and that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant bail. The court also found that there was a significant risk that Townsend would commit further offences if released on bail. Ultimately, the application for bail was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

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.