Re PZX [2024] QSC 186, is a decision of Chief Justice Bowskill, that considers the interplay between section 552BA of the criminal Code and sections 9 and 16(3) bail Act Qld 1980. Importantly, the court was called upon to determine whether the applicant was in a ‘show cause position’ given that he was already on bail for what the Crown alleged were, indictable offences.
The court needed to determine whether the show cause provision was enlivened in circumstances where the earlier indictable offences were capable of summary disposition pursuant to the requirements of section 552BA of the criminal Code.
The Applicant was charged with a series of offences alleged to have been committed on 21 May 2024. Those offences include unlawful use of a motor vehicle, trafficking in dangerous drugs, possession of various drugs, possession of tainted property and possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with committing a drug offence.
At the time the 21 May 2024, offences were alleged to have been committed the applicant was on bail for offences of entering premises with intent under section 421 (1) of the criminal code; entering premises and committing an indictable offence by break, under section 421 (2) and (3) of the criminal code; stealing, and contravening a direction or requirement of a police officer.
THE nzW
Prima facie grant of bail – section 9
Where a person held in custody on a charge of an offence of which the person has not been convicted appears or is brought before a court empowered by section 8 to grant bail to the person in relation to that offence, the court shall, subject to this Act, grant bail to that person or enlarge or vary bail already granted to the person in relation to that offence.
Show Cause bail – section 16(3)
Where the Defendant is charged (a) with an indictable offence that is alleged to have been committed while the defendant was at large with or without bail between the date of the defendant’s apprehension and the date of the defendant’s committal for trial or while awaiting trial for another indictable offence;
…the court or police officer shall refuse to grant bail unless the defendant shows cause why the defendant’s detention in custody is not justified
LEGAL ISSUE
A person applying for bail is in a show cause position under section 16 (three) of the bail act where the person “…is charged… with an indictable offence that is alleged to have been committed while the defendant was at large with or without bail between the date of the defendant’s apprehension and the date of the defendants committal for trial or while awaiting trial for another indictable offence.”
The applicant accepted that he was on bail for an indictable offence but did not accept that the offences were such that he would be committed for trial (trial is defined in section 6 of the bail Act includes a proceeding wherein a person is to be sentenced) on the basis that each of the earlier offences was to proceed summarily and, indeed, must do so by operation of section 552BA of the criminal code.
If accepted, then the applicant was entitled to a prima facie grant of bail unless the prosecution could demonstrate that the applicant was an unacceptable risk.
DECISION
Her Honour held at [14]
In this case, given that the offences for which the applicant already had bail must proceed summarily under section 552BA of the Code, the applicant’s submission is that section 16(3)(a) of the bail Act does not apply because, at the time he allegedly committed the later offences, he was not at large awaiting committal for trial or trial, defined as that is by reference to a charge on indictment for those other, earlier offences.
On balance, the Chief Justice formed the view that the applicant submission should be accepted, because of the use of the word “awaiting” in section 16(3)(a). That is, it cannot be said that, at the time he allegedly committed the offences for which he now seeks bail, he was awaiting committal for trial or trial in the sense of the charge on indictment.
The only thing the applicant was awaiting is summary proceedings, as mandated by section 552BA, in respect of the earlier charges.
Her Honour ultimately proceeded on the basis that PZX was not in a show cause situation and was therefore entitled to the benefit of section 9, which obliges the court to grant his application unless satisfied there is an unacceptable risk of a relevant kind.
CAVEAT
There is of course, the potential left open by section 552D of the criminal code, the magistrate “may” abstain from dealing summarily with the charge if they form the view that it is not appropriate to do so. If that was to occur, the proceeding would then be conducted as a committal. The Chief Justice noted that while there was the mandatory language used in section 552BA of the code, there is a remaining possibility that the applicant may proceed to committal for trial or sentence, if the magistrate was to act under section 552D. Her Honour however considered that this was something that would eventuated a much later stage in the process.
DISCnzIMER
This website contains general information about legal matters. The information is not advice, and should not be treated as such. You must not rely on the information on this website as an alternative to legal advice from your lawyer or other professional legal services provider. This publication is for your information and interest only. You should never delay seeking legal advice, disregard legal advice, or commence or discontinue any legal action because of information on this website.
The receipt of any information from us in this publication is not intended to create nor does it create a solicitor-client relationship between you and Gatenby criminal Lawyers Pty Ltd.
For specific legal advice you should immediately contact Gatenby criminal Lawyers on (07) 5580 0120.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation.
bail-application/”>Source link
