Re Tappin
[2006] QSC 117
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Re Tappin[2006] QSC 117
- Add to List
Re Tappin[2006] QSC 117
Re Tappin[2006] QSC 117
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
ATKINSON J
No 4202 of 2006
RE AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL
BY DEAN BARRY CHRISTOPHER TAPPIN
BRISBANE
DATE 23/05/2006
ORDER
HER HONOUR: This is an application for bail by Dean Barry Christopher Tappin, who has been charged with one count of murder. Because of that charge against him, he may only be granted bail by the Supreme Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court pursuant to section 13 of the Bail Act.
When a defendant is charged with an offence to which section 13 applies, the Court shall refuse to grant bail unless the defendant shows cause why his detention in custody is not justified.
The justification for detaining someone in custody pending trial depends on whether or not there is an unacceptable risk that the defendant, if released on bail, would fail to appear and surrender into custody; would while released on bail, commit an offence or endanger the safety or welfare of a person who has claimed to be a victim of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or anyone else's safety or welfare; or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of Justice.
The Court is required to consider a number of matters that are relevant to determining the acceptability or otherwise of the risk. Subsection 2 of section 16 sets out the following:
(1) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(2) the character, antecedents, associations, home environment, employment and background of the
defendant;
(3)the history of any previous grants of bail to the defendant;
(4)the strength of the evidence against the defendant.
This is a serious offence and there is prima facie evidence at least of manslaughter against the defendant. One could not, at this stage, say it was an overwhelmingly strong case of murder.
Apart from the offences, it is necessary, therefore, to look at the personal circumstances of the defendant or the applicant for bail. Those circumstances are that he has no relevant criminal history; that he resides in Queensland and all his ties appear to be within this jurisdiction. He lives in a stable relationship in this jurisdiction and has children for whom he is responsible and with whom he lives. He is currently 40 years of age.
He proposes a residential condition so that the police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will know where he is living at all times. It will be necessary for him to report to the police on a regular basis to ensure that the police know of his whereabouts.
He has agreed to a condition that he shall not maintain employment as a security or crowd control provider whilst subject to bail. This reduces the chances, of course, of any suggestion of re-offending. Although his history, which does not suggest any previous propensity to violence, does suggest that the chances of re-offending are low in any event.
He has also agreed, as a term of bail, not to contact or attempt to contact either directly or indirectly any Crown or potential Crown witness; not to depart from Queensland without the prior written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and not to attend the premises of the hotel where the events are alleged to have happened, except in the company of his solicitor or barrister.
In those circumstances, there does not seem to me to be an unacceptable risk that if released on bail, on those conditions, that he would re-offend or fail to appear to answer his bail. Added to that must be considered the fact that he would be likely to spend a considerable period in custody before his matter comes to Court and is dealt with.
In those circumstances, I am prepared to grant bail for the reasons I have just given, in accordance with the proposed draft order, except with the addition of the word "Wednesday" between Monday and Friday in paragraph C of the order and the replacement of the word "a" before solicitor or barrister with the word "his" in paragraph G.
The reasons for granting bail, as I have said, will be these reasons which I have just dictated, not the reasons set out in the draft order. The order will be as per draft as amended, together with these reasons. I have initialled the amended draft order and I will place them with the papers.
...