You are a solicitor at a leading law firm in Brisbane, Flack & Flack. A Senior Partner of the firm, Elizabeth Barker, has assigned you a case file (RP/2016/05/01) and has requested an opinion1 on the matter from you. Please draft your opinion in the form of an internal memorandum of advice addressed to the Senior Partner, Elizabeth Barker. The facts within case file RP/2016/05/01 are as follows: Our client, Catriona Robertson was arrested and charged with various drug offences including: • Trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, methylamphetamine; • Possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 200 grams; • Possessing property obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug; • Possessing a thing for use in connection with trafficking a dangerous drug; • Producing dangerous drugs, namely, heroin and methylamphetamine; The prosecution case is built on police surveillance of Catriona over a six-month period during the latter half of 2015. Some of this evidence includes covertly recorded conversations in which Catriona is heard arranging the purchase, possession and sale of drugs. It also includes visual surveillance and recordings of regular weekly meetings with people Catriona was allegedly selling drugs to. The police also possess evidence of interstate travel with an associate twice monthly to apparently acquire methylamphetamine and heroin. 1 This does not mean your personal opinion. It means: 'A formal statement by a judge or other competent authority of what he or she judges or advises on a matter; professional advice; as a legal (also medical) opinion, to get an opinion of counsel, etc': Oxford English Dictionary. © University of Southern Queensland 3 The police intercepted Catriona and her associate in the car park of a high-rise residential unit building in Brisbane. The police located $300 000 worth of cash in a rental car. Upon execution of a search warrant, the police found more cash, heroin, packaged methylamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Catriona's unit. Catriona is aged 26. She has a relatively minor criminal history. She has no real family ties to Queensland. Most of Catriona's family live interstate. She has previously complied with bail conditions for other charges. One of Catriona's close friends is offering a surety of $75 000 (or a larger, unspecified sum if the court requires it) and a place to live in Queensland. If found guilty of the charges, Catriona faces a lengthy term of imprisonment. It is predicted that her trial will take place in November 2017. On 19 May 2016, an originating application for bail was heard before Quant J of the Queensland Supreme Court relating to Catriona's drug charges. The prosecution submitted that their case against Catriona was strong. They opposed bail. The prosecution focused upon her youth, and potential for reckless behaviour. They coupled these facts with Catriona's possession of a passport, pre-trial delay and her strong ties with another jurisdiction, which might provide her with a strong opportunity to flee. Catriona's counsel submitted that the availability of a surety, the likely delay before trial and suggested bail conditions (reporting three days a week and a nighttime curfew) combined to reduce the risk that she might not appear at trial. Quant J delivered her reasons ex tempore and refused Catriona's application for bail. Her Honour recognised that the charges did not give rise to a show cause situation under s 16(3) of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld). However, her Honour brought up the serious nature of the offences and the significant © University of Southern Queensland 4 period of imprisonment Catriona would face if she was convicted. Quant J concluded there was 'an unacceptable risk' that Catriona would fail to appear or reoffend if granted bail. Her Honour reviewed Catriona's limited criminal history and connections with Queensland which would probably facilitate her flight from the jurisdiction. Catriona has instructed us to appeal the decision of Quant J of 19 May 2016 refusing her bail. Elizabeth has remarked to you that the police brief of evidence was not yet available when Catriona applied for bail. She complains that her Honour gave greater weight to the seriousness of the offences rather than the strength of the evidence. Elizabeth asks you to prepare a research memorandum for her dealing with the following issues using relevant case law, statute and background material: 1. With reference to the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) and Catriona's situation specifically, in what circumstances would the presumed entitlement to bail be rebutted? 2. Given that Catriona is appealing from the exercise of judicial discretion, what would she have to show the Court of Appeal in order to succeed on appeal?; 3. If Catriona were to reapply for bail instead, what does she have to show the court to be granted bail?; 4. In light of the above, reach a conclusion (with reference to case law) as to whether Catriona would succeed on appeal or reapplication. Which is the preferred option