Williams & Hughes, Re an Application for Bail - [2016] QDC 204

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williams & Hughes, Re an Application for Bail [2016] QDC 204

PARTIES:

BIANCA WILLIAMS
(applicant)

CRAIG RONALD HUGHES

(applicant)

v

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

402 of 2016

403 of 2016

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Bail

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

28 July 2016 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

28 July 2016

JUDGE:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

The applications for bail are dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – before sentence – whether granting bail following conviction is justified – where defendants pleaded guilty to serious criminal offences – whether there are exceptional circumstances.

Criminal Code Act 1899

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, 13A

Ex parte Maher [1986] 1Qd R 303.

R v Boyd [2009] QCA 8.

R v Fitzgerald [2004] QCA 241.

R v Wentt [1995] QCA 613.

COUNSEL:

S Thompson for the applicant Williams

P Bodisco for the applicant Hughes

N McGhee for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Buckland Allen Criminal Lawyers for the applicant Williams

City Legal Solicitors for the applicant Hughes

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)for the respondent

These are applications for bail in respect of two defendants who pleaded guilty to serious offences before me yesterday. It was requested that the sentencing hearing be adjourned to 14 October 2016 to enable the preparation of a psychological or psychiatric assessment in respect of each defendant. The offending in question involved what might be colloquially termed a home invasion. The applicant Hughes pleaded guilty to burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm while armed in company, and the applicant Williams pleaded guilty to burglary and common assault.

The relevant factual matrix is that on the evening of 8 March 2015, the applicant Williams and her then partner, the complainant, were arguing and she threatened to text a friend, whom she said was a bikie, to “come and get him”. She left the complainant’s residence and returned four hours later with two men, including the applicant Hughes. She went upstairs and talked to the complainant and indicated that were people outside. She then proceeded to let them in. They pushed her out of the way and approached the complainant as he was backing away with a Samurai sword.

Home invasions are serious offences and are viewed that way by the courts. The offending comes within section 419 of the Criminal Code Act 1899, which provides a maximum penalty of the imprisonment of life. In R v Wentt [1995] QCA 613, Thomas J observed:

“Offences of this character, which threaten the safety of persons in their own home, are commonly regarded as sufficiently serious to demand custodial sentences, even in the case of persons of previous good character.”

These observations were noted in R v Fitzgerald [2004] QCA 241, and in R v Boyd [2009] QCA 8.

As the Full Court observed in ex parte Maher [1986] 1Qd R 303,.for either of the defendants to be granted bail, they…

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 Williams & Hughes, Re an Application for Bail

Details

AGLC: Williams and Hughes, Re an Application for Bail [2016] QDC 204
Case: [2016] QDC 204
Decision Date: 28 July 2016 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams and Hughes applied for bail pending appeal against their conviction. The applicants had pleaded guilty to serious criminal offences including aggravated armed robbery and dangerous driving causing death. The primary judge found that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the granting of bail following conviction. The applicants sought to appeal the primary judge's decision. In considering the applications, the court was required to determine whether the primary judge's conclusion that there were no exceptional circumstances was correct. The applicants argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to the length of time they had spent in custody, their prospects of rehabilitation, and their ties to the community. The court found that the primary judge's conclusion was not erroneous and dismissed the applications for bail. The court held that the seriousness of the offences, the risk of reoffending, and the need for deterrence outweighed any considerations in favour of bail. The court also noted that the applicants had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify departing from the usual rule against granting bail following conviction. The applications for bail were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applications for bail are dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	Williams & Hughes, Re an Application for Bail [2016] QDC 204
PARTIES:	BIANCA WILLIAMS (applicant) CRAIG RONALD HUGHES (applicant) v OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	402 of 2016 403 of 2016
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for Bail
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	28 July 2016 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	28 July 2016
JUDGE:	Everson DCJ
ORDER:	The applications for bail are dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – before sentence – whether granting bail following conviction is justified – where defendants pleaded guilty to serious criminal offences – whether there are exceptional circumstances. Criminal Code Act 1899 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, 13A Ex parte Maher [1986] 1Qd R 303. R v Boyd [2009] QCA 8. R v Fitzgerald [2004] QCA 241. R v Wentt [1995] QCA 613.
COUNSEL:	S Thompson for the applicant Williams P Bodisco for the applicant Hughes N McGhee for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Buckland Allen Criminal Lawyers for the applicant Williams City Legal Solicitors for the applicant Hughes Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)for the respondent