Watts v DPP - [2007] VSC 275

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1501 of 2003

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by PHILLIP DAMIEN WATTS

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 July 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 July 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Watts v DPP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 275

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Alleged offences committed while on bail – Aggravated burglary – ss 4(4)(a), 4(4)(c) Bail Act 1977 ; Re Fred Joseph Asmar [2005] VSC 487

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P. Matthews	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms S. Flynn	OPP

HIS HONOUR:

Phillip Damien Watts, you are awaiting retrial on charges of aggravated burglary, attempted armed robbery, four counts of armed robbery, two counts of intentionally causing injury, six counts of threats to inflict serious injury and attempted robbery. The events which led to these charges occurred in Horsham on 1 February 2004. The case against you includes eyewitness identification of your presence at the scene by someone acquainted with you.

Your retrial has been rendered necessary by a successful appeal against your conviction at an earlier trial which miscarried as a matter of process. Your retrial is likely to occur in the latter part of the first half of next year.

At the time you allegedly committed the offences upon which you are to be retried, you were on bail awaiting trial on another series of serious offences of which you were convicted before Judge Morgan-Payler on 15 April 2005. Judge Morgan-Payler sentenced you to two years' imprisonment with a minimum of 18 months. While serving that sentence you were tried for the events of February 2004 and upon conviction on 22 November 2005 you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of eight years' imprisonment with a new non-parole period of five years 11 months. You have been in prison since 2004 and will remain there unless you are successful on the bail application now before this Court.

The nature of the charges you are facing and the fact that it is alleged you committed them whilst on bail means that you bear the onus of satisfying this Court that your continued detention is not justified in the circumstances.

Your counsel referred to the decision of Maxwell P in Asmar[1] as authority for the proposition that the provisions of s 4(4)(a) and s 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act 1977 mean that the test which must be applied by the Court is simply whether it is satisfied that your continued detention is not justified. It is, according to Maxwell P, a simple one stage test, easy of application and without the necessity for separate consideration of questions as to whether your release presents an unacceptable risk of absconding or re-offending. Although a more complex test has been proposed by some interpretations of the section, I favour that propounded…

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 Watts v DPP

Details

AGLC: Watts v DPP [2007] VSC 275
Case: [2007] VSC 275
Decision Date: 17 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Watts, was charged with aggravated burglary and appealed against a decision to revoke his bail. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the alleged offences committed by Watts while on bail for another matter constituted a sufficient ground to revoke his bail under sections 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act 1977. Additionally, the court had to consider the relevance of the case of Re Fred Joseph Asmar [2005] VSC 487.

The court found that the mere commission of further offences while on bail was not an automatic ground for revocation, but it could be a factor considered under the statutory provisions. The court examined the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, and whether they demonstrated a lack of suitability for bail. In applying the principles from Re Fred Joseph Asmar, the court held that Watts' alleged conduct, if proven, did not necessarily mean he was unsuitable for bail but warranted a careful review of the circumstances. The court concluded that the alleged offences, coupled with other factors, justified the revocation of Watts' bail as it indicated a disregard for the conditions set for his release.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision to revoke Watts' bail. The court considered the cumulative effect of Watts' alleged conduct and other factors, finding that it demonstrated a substantial risk to the community and a breach of the conditions of his bail. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and the need to protect the community from potential harm. The final orders affirmed the decision of the lower court, leaving Watts in custody pending the resolution of the charges against him.

Orders