Ugle v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

[2015] WASC 204

UGLE -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 2] [2015] WASC 204

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 204
Published:	05/06/2015
Case No:	MBA:47/2014	Heard:	29 MAY 2015
Coram:	MARTINO J	Delivered:	29/05/15
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for bail dismissed on the ground that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to grant bail
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TRAVIS SCOTT UGLE THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Criminal Law Bail Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction at first instance to grant bail after an accused has been committed to the District Court
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14
Case References:	Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Cmr of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27 Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 250 CLR 503 Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 99; (2011) 42 WAR 99 Ugle v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 7

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : UGLE -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 2] [2015] WASC 204 CORAM : MARTINO J HEARD : 29 MAY 2015 DELIVERED : 29 MAY 2015 PUBLISHED : 5 JUNE 2015 FILE NO/S : MBA 47 of 2014 BETWEEN : TRAVIS SCOTT UGLE

Applicant

AND

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal Law - Bail - Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction at first instance to grant bail after an accused has been committed to the District Court

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14

Result:

Application for bail dismissed on the ground that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to grant bail

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr S F Rafferty
Respondent : Mr B F Stanwix

Solicitors:

Applicant : Seamus Rafferty
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Cases referred to in judgment:

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Cmr of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 250 CLR 503
Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 99; (2011) 42 WAR 99
Ugle v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 7

MARTINO J:

(These reasons were delivered extemporaneously and have been edited from the transcript.)

1 Mr Ugle is charged on an indictment in the District Court, dated 27 March 2015, with demanding property without reasonable cause with threat of injury or detriment and with intent to harm doing an act as a result of which the life, health or safety of a person was likely to be endangered.

2 He has been listed for trial in the District Court to commence on 12 October 2015 for six weeks. He applies for bail to that trial date. He has previously applied to this court for bail and that application was refused by Edelman J: Ugle v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 7.

3 The State opposes bail. It submits that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the application following Mr Ugle's committal to the District Court and his appearance in that court. The State also submits that there are no new facts or new circumstances which enable this court to consider the application. Further, if this application is considered, it submits that bail should not be granted.

4 The first point is jurisdiction. To my knowledge, and to the knowledge of counsel appearing today, there has not been any previous decision by this court on this point. To the contrary, there have been circumstances where bail applications have been considered by this court after committal to the District Court, but in none of those cases has the point currently taken by the State been made or considered. I need to consider the point for the first time.

5 Section 13 of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) provides for jurisdiction to grant bail on the various appearances in a court as set out in pt A of sch 1 and, as I understand it, that is not the basis upon which Mr Ugle applies for bail in this court because he has already appeared in the District Court and been listed now to appear at that trial. Section 14 of the Bail Act is the provision upon which Mr Ugle relies:

14. Judges, jurisdiction of

(1) A judge may, in accordance with this Act -

(a) exercise a power to grant bail which is conferred upon any other judicial officer or any authorised officer by this Act; and

(b) revoke or vary any bail previously granted by any other such officer; and

(c) under section 7A dispense with the requirement for bail or revoke an existing dispensation.

...

(4) In this section -


(a) references to a judge are references -

(i) in the case of a child charged with an offence before the Children’s Court, to a judge of that Court; and

(ii) in the case of an accused committed for trial or sentence to the District Court, to a judge of that Court; and

(iii) in any other case, to a judge of the Supreme Court;


and

(b) references to any other judicial officer -


(i) in relation to the exercise of powers under this section by a judge, are references to any judicial officer whose jurisdiction is inferior to that of the judge; but

(ii) in relation to the exercise of powers under this section by a judge of the Supreme Court, do not include a judge of the Children’s Court or a judge of the District Court.

6 The State's submission is that this case falls within s 14(4)(a)(ii) and so a judge of the District Court has jurisdiction. The State submits that the case does not fall within s 14(4)(a)(iii) and so a judge of the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction.

7 The principles of statutory interpretation have been explained by the High Court:

"This court has stated on many occasions that the task of statutory construction must begin with a consideration of the [statutory] text".1 So must the task of statutory construction end. The statutory text must be considered in its context. That context includes legislative history and extrinsic materials. Understanding context has utility if, and in so far as, it assists in fixing the meaning of the statutory text. Legislative history and extrinsic materials cannot displace the meaning of the statutory text. Nor is their examination an end in itself.2

8 In Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia,3 McLure P said that the Bail Act is intended to be a comprehensive code on the subject of bail and any common law or inherent power to grant bail has been abolished.

9 Counsel for Mr Ugle submits that the use of the conjunctive word 'and' after subparas (i) and (ii) rather than the disjunctive 'or' means that a Supreme Court judge has jurisdiction in all three cases. I have considered that submission and I have decided that I do not accept it. I do not accept it by reason of the whole paragraph and, in particular, the use of the words 'in any other case'.

10 In the case of an accused committed for trial or sentence to the District Court, a judge of the District Court has jurisdiction. In any other case, apart from that case and the case of a child charged with an offence before the Children's Court, a judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. There is nothing that I can see in s 14 of the Bail Act that gives a judge of the Supreme Court jurisdiction to grant bail after an accused has been committed to the District Court as has happened in this case.

11 In my view, that reading of the text is fortified by the legislative history. Section 14, in its present terms, was included in the Bail Act by the Bail Amendment Act 2008 (No 6 of 2008) (WA). Prior to those amendments, s 14 of the Bail Act very clearly provided that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in all cases. It is my view those changes confirm that the intention of the legislature was to remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all case so that it no longer has jurisdiction in the case of a child charged with an offence before the Children's Court and in the case of an accused committed for trial or sentence to the District Court.

12 Counsel for Mr Ugle has requested that in view of my decision on jurisdiction I do not give a decision on the merits of the application. Counsel for the State made no submission on that request. I have decided that I should accept the submission of counsel for Mr Ugle and not express my views on a matter on which I have decided I do not have jurisdiction.

______________________________________

1Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Cmr of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27, 46 [47] (the Court).
2Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 250 CLR 503 [39] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Bell & Gageler JJ).
3Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 99; (2011) 42 WAR 99 [31] - [32].