Williams v The Queen - [2001] WASC 308

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WILLIAMS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASC 308

CORAM: SCOTT J

HEARD: 9 NOVEMBER 2001

DELIVERED : 15 NOVEMBER 2001

FILE NO/S: MCS 62 of 2001

BETWEEN: RICHARD JOHN SEYMOUR WILLIAMS
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Bail application - Further serious offence alleged whilst on bail for serious offences - Exceptional circumstances required - Disposition of original offence irrelevant to exceptional circumstances except as part of antecedents of applicant

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982, cl 3A, Pt C

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr R D Young
Respondent: Ms P Chong

Solicitors:

Applicant: Gunning Barristers & Solicitors
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Pallister v The Queen [2001] WASC 295

SCOTT J: The applicant has applied for bail. Bail was refused in the Court of Petty Sessions on 19 October 2001. The applicant was originally granted bail in relation to offences of stealing a motor vehicle, breach of bail and possessing amphetamines ("the first charges").
On 31 October 2001 the applicant pleaded guilty to those charges and in addition he admitted breaching an intensive supervision order. He was placed on a further intensive supervision order for 18 months with 100 hours community service work and with other conditions, including an obligation that he submit to drug counselling.
Whilst on bail in relation to the first charges and before his guilty plea it was alleged that the applicant stole a 1997 Holden Commodore sedan valued at $25,000. Bail was refused in relation to this matter.
It is common ground that the first charges included an offence which was a "serious offence" within the meaning of that term in the Bail Act 1982 ("the Bail Act") and that the allegation of the subsequent offence, that is the stealing of a motor vehicle, was also a "serious offence" within that definition.
Because the applicant was alleged to have committed a serious offence whilst on bail, cl 3A of Sch 1 of the Bail Act applied to him and it was therefore necessary for him to demonstrate on this application that there were "exceptional reasons" why he should not be kept in custody.
Counsel for the applicant contended that exceptional circumstances were demonstrated by reason of the fact that when the first charges came on for hearing before the Court of Petty Sessions on 31 October 2001 the applicant pleaded guilty to those charges together with the breach of an intensive supervision order. He was placed on a further intensive supervision order for 18 months with the conditions as outlined earlier in these reasons.
In relation to the charge of stealing the motor vehicle bail was refused on 19 October 2001 and the applicant was remanded in custody to an election date on 14 December 2001. The learned Magistrate did not accept that the applicant had demonstrated sufficiently exceptional circumstances. In his extempore reasons of…

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 v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Williams v The Queen [2001] WASC 308
Case: [2001] WASC 308
Decision Date: 15 NOVEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Williams, applied for bail pending appeal against his conviction and sentence for a number of serious offences. He was already on bail for those offences when further allegations of serious offences arose. The respondent, The Queen, opposed the bail application on the basis that the applicant had committed serious offences whilst on bail. The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to bail in light of the further allegations. The court held that the applicant had failed to satisfy the exceptional circumstances test required to grant bail in such circumstances. In coming to this conclusion, the court noted that the disposition of the original offence was irrelevant to the question of whether exceptional circumstances existed, except insofar as it was part of the applicant's antecedents. The court held that the applicant had not satisfied the test for exceptional circumstances, and dismissed the application for bail.

The applicant submitted that the further allegations were unproven and that it was unfair to take them into account in determining whether he was entitled to bail. The court rejected this submission, holding that the further allegations, even if unproven, were relevant to the question of whether exceptional circumstances existed. The court held that the applicant had not established that he was entitled to bail, and that the further allegations were a significant factor in coming to that conclusion. The court held that the applicant had not satisfied the test for exceptional circumstances, and dismissed the application for bail. The court did not make any orders as to costs.

Orders