The Case of Johnson
After her arrest, Johnson is charged with numerous offenses against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), including trafficking, production, possession (drugs, substances, things, suspected property, etc) and permitting the use of place. She is also charged with manufacturing offenses against the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (s50), and against the Criminal Code 1899 (s340(1)(b) serious assault). Shortly after her arrest, she is brought before a court and makes an application for bail.
Johnson knows that the evidence against her in relation to most of the charges is strong. Johnson decides to plead guilty after hearing the prosecution evidence at the committal hearing. Her lawyer negotiates with the prosecution about the exact charges to be included in the indictment and eventually her case is committed to the Supreme Court for arraignment and sentence.
Whether the court should grant Johnson bail or not
In my opinion, I think that Johnson should be granted bail, in spite of the numerous cases against her. The Bail Act 1980 states clearly the several conditions under which a defendant may be granted bail. The court has to consider several conditions before granting bail. For example, the seriousness of the case in question is a factor to be considered. If the court finds that the defendant has been supplying drugs to minors, the mentally handicapped, to persons under rehabilitation, or to people who have no knowledge that they were consuming drugs, under these circumstance, the crime is considered grievous and bail may not be granted. Otherwise, the court may grant bail even without the defendant depositing money as security. It would largely depend on the seriousness of the case (Mirko and Kenneth 158). In the case of Johnson, we are not told if she was supplying the drugs to minors or mentally challenged persons and neither do we have any evidence that the drug users never knew what they were consuming. The assumption here is that of a willing buyer vs. willing seller and as such, I am of the opinion that Johnson should be granted bail.
Secondly, if in the opinion of the court, a defendant is seen to endanger the lives of others or will interfere with the evidence if granted bail, then the court will not grant bail. The welfare of the public is paramount and always given a lot of weight when deciding to grant bail or not. Since in this case we are not given any evidence that Johnson would pose a security problem to members of the public or will interfere with the evidence, I am of the opinion that Johnson should be granted bail. All the evidence gathered is with the police and Johnson will not in any way interfere with it.
The act also says that whenever it is not practicable to obtain sufficient information for purposes of making a decision as to whether to grant bail or not due to lack of time, the defendant may be remanded without bail, until such time as when the court has the time. If Johnson, for instance, was brought to court late in the afternoon, she could be remanded until the following day. In this case, we are not told whether the court was sitting late in the afternoon and the assumption is that it was early in the morning and therefore Johnson should be granted bail. Furthermore, the courts should always have ample time to decide if to grant bail or not before the end of any day.
The strength of evidence against Johnson will also determine if the court will grant her bail. From the case, we are told there is strong evidence against her. Despite this, the background of the defendant will also determine whether she will be successful in applying for bail. We are not told the history and circumstances or the environment that Johnson is in, or whether she has a criminal record, or not. Since there is no other criminal record in the past, I am of the opinion that Johnson should be granted bail.
Possible differences indiscretion about bail if Johnson was already on bail and awaiting trial for another indictable offense
Johnson’s case would be totally different if she was already on bail. The Bail Act 1980 subsection 16(3) states clearly the circumstances under which the court may refuse to grant bail. If the defendant were already on bail, and found to have committed the same offenses, she would not be granted bail again. If Johnson were already out on bail, she would be remanded straight away until her case is heard and determined in court.
The Case of Macintosh
Macintosh is charged with trafficking, supply, and possession offenses both against Queensland and Commonwealth Acts (Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), and the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). He is also charged with an offense of serious assault (s340 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)) for stamping on the arresting police officer’s foot. He is released on bail upon his own undertaking (s11 Bail Act 1980).
An ex-officio indictment
According to the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, Ex- officio indictment is a situation where even if no committal hearing has taken place or if a magistrate has found at a committal hearing that there is insufficient evidence to put a defendant on trial, the director of public prosecution may in exceptional case, file a special indictment (called ex-official indictment) against a person and that person must then stand trial in the normal manner in the district or supreme court.
Because of his confession, the evidence against Macintosh is quite strong. Prior to his committal hearing, his rather inexperienced lawyer advises him to consent to the prosecution proceeding by way of an ex-officio indictment. His matter is listed in the Supreme Court for trial.
Whether it would have been more beneficial for Macintosh to have a committal hearing or not
To some extent it would be more beneficial for Macintosh to plead guilty to his case rather than denying and allowing the case to drag on for long, sometimes for several months. In a committal hearing both the defendant and the prosecutor are allowed to express themselves, the prosecution have to provide strong evidence linking the defendant to the crimes. On the other hand, the defendant is allowed to defend himself against the allegations of the prosecution (Moles para. 3). Macintosh is sure the prosecutor has strong evidence against him and therefore it does not help much to continue with the committal hearing, which could drag on for months or even years. By admitting to his case, this could convince the magistrate that he is a reformed person and therefore get a lenient sentence. Although he is facing different charges of possession of guns, trafficking and assault, all of which carry severe sentence, by accepting the guilt of all these offences means that he is remorseful of his behavior. The law always assumes the defendant innocent until proven guilty, if Macintosh goes on denying the charges, when finally the ruling is made, the sentence could be severe. By pleading guilty does help.
According to Hedgecock versus the Republic 29th September, 2007 in the Darwin Supreme Court, Hedgecock was charged with unlawfully cultivating cannabis; this is a crime with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. Hedgecock finally received a fully suspended nine months imprisonment, mainly because he pleaded guilty to the charges. Besides, he was found to have cooperated fully with the police, had good work history and respected by his employer and had good prospects of rehabilitation too. The judge observed that he had not intended to use the drug for commercial purposes (Kenny 185). Although pleading guilty to a charge may be helpful, there are other factors that are taken into consideration in determining the case, the history and the behavior of the defendant at the time of arrest and thereafter will play a very critical role in the final judgment. Pleading guilty is not automatic that it will be helpful to the defendant. Macintosh stamping on the foot of the arresting police officer is a fact that he may have resisted arrest. Also since Macintosh is facing multiple charges seems to imply that he has a criminal tendency. Pleading guilty to charges may help Macintosh to get a lenient sentence.
Works Cited
Bagaric, Mirko and Arenson, Kenneth J. Criminal Law in Australia: Cases and Materials. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Kenny, Graham. An Introduction to Criminal Law in Queensland and Western Australia. Australia: Lexis Nexis, 2008. Print.
Moles, Roberts. Independence and Accountability of the Director of Public
Prosecutions: A Comparative Survey (n.d.). 2011. Web.