MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Van Tongeren v ODPP (Qld) [2013] QMC 16
PARTIES:
PAUL VAN TONGEREN
(applicant)
v
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION (QLD)
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
MAG217673/13(5)
DIVISION:
Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:
Bail Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
14 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
12 November 2013
MAGISTRATE:
The Honourable Judge Carmody QC
ORDER:
Bail is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – whether the applicant is a participant in a criminal organisation – whether the applicant can show cause why their continued detention is unjustified
Bail Act 1980 (Qld)
COUNSEL:
ME Bouchier for applicant
DR Kinsella for respondent
SOLICITORS:
Bosscher Lawyers for applicant
Respondent on own behalf
Introduction
This is a contested bail hearing.
The applicant is an unconvicted defendant who has been held in custody since his arrest eight (8) days ago on charges of disorderly behaviour on hotel premises and affray.
Jurisdiction
Bail hearings in the Magistrates Court are ordinarily held in the geographical district or division in which the defendant lives or the offence occurred (cf s 139(1)-(2) Justices Act 1886 (Qld).
However, the venue can be varied by direction of the Chief Magistrate (s 12(2)(d) Magistrates Act 1991 (Qld)).
By Practice Direction of 21 of 2013 all bail hearings to which s 16(3A) of the Bail Act applies are to be heard in Court 20 in the Brisbane Magistrates Court from 4 November 2013.
Thus, notwithstanding that the related criminal proceedings are pending in the Toowoomba Magistrates Court, this court has authority to grant bail under s 8 of the Bail Act (Re: Groves’ Application (2013) Qd R 310 per WB Campbell J).
History of bail
Modern bail is conditional liberty granted subject to the Act. Conditions added to encourage compliance must not be overly onerous for the person in the circumstances: s 11(1). Special restrictions may also be imposed to ensure the objects of bail and mitigate risk.
A defendant not released on bail or sentenced for the offence charged must be remanded in custody: s 8(2).
The word bail derives from the French for hold and deliver. The old common law did not recognise a right of liberty for defendants on remand (Chau –v- DPP (1995) 37 NSWLR 639 per Gleeson CJ at 646) but from the early medieval period routinely released them into the custody of a surety via a form of habeas corpus as an alternative to the “inadequate and disease ridden gaols and lock ups” (R Roulston, Principles of Bail, Proceedings of the Institute of Criminology, Sydney University Law School (1969)).
In Norman times the power was entrusted to the nobles and then to sheriffs but was transferred to justices during the reign of the Tudors and in the late 17th century devolved to Magistrates because of excesses and abuse of power “designed to elude the benefit of… liberty”(Sir William Holdsworth A History of English Law (vol IV pp525-8)).
Over the next 500 years…
Continue reading Van Tongeren v Odpp (Qld)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Van Tongeren v Odpp (Qld) [2013] QMC 16
- Case
- [2013] QMC 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was indeed a member of a criminal organisation, and if so, whether this fact alone justified their continued detention without bail. The court needed to weigh the risk of re-offending against the applicant's right to liberty. In making its determination, the court considered various factors including the nature and seriousness of the charges, the evidence of the applicant's involvement in criminal activities, and the potential impact of their release on the community.
The court concluded that the evidence presented established the applicant's membership in a criminal organisation, which posed a significant risk of re-offending if granted bail. The court found that this risk was sufficient to justify the continued detention of the applicant. The court emphasised the need to protect the community and ensure that the applicant would not engage in further criminal activities while on bail. The court also considered the applicant's history of non-compliance with bail conditions in previous matters, which further supported the decision to refuse bail.
The court's final order was to refuse the applicant's application for bail. The court determined that the risk of re-offending and the potential harm to the community if the applicant were released on bail outweighed the applicant's right to liberty. The applicant's membership in a criminal organisation and the associated risks were deemed significant enough to warrant continued detention.
Orders
Orders of the court
Bail is 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.