Tregurtha v The Queen - [2002] WASC 311

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: TREGURTHA -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASC 311

CORAM: BARKER J

HEARD: 13 DECEMBER 2002

DELIVERED : 17 DECEMBER 2002

FILE NO/S: MCS 9 of 2002

BETWEEN: STEPHEN BRUCE TREGURTHA
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Bail Act 1982 (WA) - Clause 3A of Pt C of Sch 1 - Application for bail pending trial - Earlier bail application refused - "New circumstances" - "Circumstances have changed" - Acquittal of earlier charge - Delay before trial some 17 months - Whether "exceptional reasons" why applicant should not be kept in custody

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), Sch 1, Pt C, cl 3A(1) and (2)

Criminal Code, s 332(2)(a)

Result:

Application for bail granted, on conditions

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms J G Fordham
Respondent: Ms C Barbagallo

Solicitors:

Applicant: Kott Gunning
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Alexopoulos v The Queen, unreported; SCt of Vic; 23 February 1998
Broad v Haas [2002] WASC 155
Firkins v Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] WASC 203
Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199
Saka v The Queen [2001] WASC 92
Williams v The Queen [2001] WASC 308
Wright v The Queen [2000] WASC 236

Case(s) also cited:

Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1
WCVB v R [1989] 1 WAR 279

BARKER J: By an application made under the Bail Act1982 (WA) and the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2000 and dated 10 December 2002, the applicant applies for bail on such terms as this Court thinks fit.
The applicant is presently in custody on a charge of detaining another with intent to gain a benefit under s 332(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. The matter with which he is charged is a "serious offence" as that expression is defined by the Bail Act. The applicant has been in custody since his arrest on this charge on 28 October 2001, that is to say, for nearly 14 months. The matter is set down for an eight‑day trial due to commence on 17 March 2003. Should the applicant not be granted bail, he will, by the date of commencement of the trial, have spent some 17 months in custody awaiting trial.
At the time the Crown allege the applicant committed this offence, the applicant was on bail in respect of a charge of unlawfully detaining a woman contrary to s 333 of the Criminal Code. He had been arrested on this earlier charge on 14 February 2001, and he was admitted to bail on that charge soon after arrest. As in the case of the matter upon which he is presently in custody, this earlier charge was also a "serious offence" for the purposes of the Bail Act.
On 1 March 2002, in this Court, Pullin J rejected the application of the applicant…

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 Tregurtha v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Tregurtha v The Queen [2002] WASC 311
Case: [2002] WASC 311
Decision Date: 17 DECEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tregurtha v The Queen involved the appellant, who had previously been refused bail under the Bail Act 1982 (WA). The appellant sought bail pending trial for an offence, following a 17-month delay. The earlier application for bail was denied due to concerns about the appellant's potential flight risk. However, the appellant was acquitted of a separate charge during this period, which he argued constituted new circumstances warranting a reconsideration of his bail application. The central issue was whether the acquittal of the earlier charge constituted new circumstances that justified the reconsideration of the appellant's bail application, and whether there were exceptional reasons why he should not be released on bail.

The court considered whether the acquittal of the earlier charge constituted new circumstances under clause 3A of Part C of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act. The court examined the legislative intent behind the clause, which was to ensure that bail applications are reconsidered in light of significant changes in the applicant's circumstances. The court found that the acquittal did indeed represent a change in circumstances, as it potentially mitigated the risk of flight. Furthermore, the court assessed whether there were exceptional reasons to deny bail, considering the substantial delay and the appellant's acquittal on the earlier charge. The court concluded that the delay and the acquittal constituted exceptional reasons to warrant reconsideration of bail.

The court determined that the appellant's acquittal on the earlier charge and the significant delay in the trial proceedings constituted new circumstances warranting reconsideration of his bail application. The court found that the exceptional reasons, including the delay and the acquittal, outweighed the reasons for the earlier denial of bail. Consequently, the court granted the appellant bail pending the trial for the current offence. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that bail applications are reconsidered in light of significant changes in the applicant's circumstances, as intended by the Bail Act.

Orders