❓ Hon Frank Hough questions why Mr. Brazier must forfeit surety for Mr. Elgueta, despite charges being dropped. The Attorney General's response details the legal history, including Elgueta's failure to appear in court and Brazier's unsuccessful attempts to be discharged from his surety obligation.
AnsweredQoN 1005Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Will the minister advise why Mr Michael Brazier is still expected to forfeit a $10 000 surety for Mr Marco Elgueta when the charges against Mr Elgueta for which the surety was required have been dropped and Mr Elgueta is not required to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - Mr Marco Elgueta was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Mr Michael Brazier was approved as surety for Mr Elgueta in the sum of $10 000 on 22 May 1997. Subsequently, Mr Brazier applied to the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions to be discharged from his surety obligation. The magistrate did not grant that application because under the Bail Act 1982 the defendant is required to be present when such an application is made. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta failed to appear at the Fremantle court on 8 July 1997. Consequently, Mr Brazier was summonsed to the Fremantle court to show cause why his surety obligation should not be forfeited. On 6 November 1997 an order was made by the Fremantle court for the forfeiture of the full amount of $10 000 of Mr Brazier’s surety undertaking. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta was committed to the District Court to stand trial for aggravated sexual assault. On 19 December 2001 in the District Court the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi. However, Mr Elgueta was charged with a number of other offences alleged to have been committed dating back to 1997, including breach of bail. On 29 October 2001, Mr Elgueta pleaded guilty to one offence of receiving stolen goods and four offences of breach of bail. The Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions sentenced Mr Elgueta to four months imprisonment on the receiving stolen goods offence and to one month imprisonment on each of the breach of bail offences. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - Mr Marco Elgueta was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Mr Michael Brazier was approved as surety for Mr Elgueta in the sum of $10 000 on 22 May 1997. Subsequently, Mr Brazier applied to the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions to be discharged from his surety obligation. The magistrate did not grant that application because under the Bail Act 1982 the defendant is required to be present when such an application is made. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta failed to appear at the Fremantle court on 8 July 1997. Consequently, Mr Brazier was summonsed to the Fremantle court to show cause why his surety obligation should not be forfeited. On 6 November 1997 an order was made by the Fremantle court for the forfeiture of the full amount of $10 000 of Mr Brazier’s surety undertaking. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta was committed to the District Court to stand trial for aggravated sexual assault. On 19 December 2001 in the District Court the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi. However, Mr Elgueta was charged with a number of other offences alleged to have been committed dating back to 1997, including breach of bail. On 29 October 2001, Mr Elgueta pleaded guilty to one offence of receiving stolen goods and four offences of breach of bail. The Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions sentenced Mr Elgueta to four months imprisonment on the receiving stolen goods offence and to one month imprisonment on each of the breach of bail offences. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - Mr Marco Elgueta was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Mr Michael Brazier was approved as surety for Mr Elgueta in the sum of $10 000 on 22 May 1997. Subsequently, Mr Brazier applied to the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions to be discharged from his surety obligation. The magistrate did not grant that application because under the Bail Act 1982 the defendant is required to be present when such an application is made. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta failed to appear at the Fremantle court on 8 July 1997. Consequently, Mr Brazier was summonsed to the Fremantle court to show cause why his surety obligation should not be forfeited. On 6 November 1997 an order was made by the Fremantle court for the forfeiture of the full amount of $10 000 of Mr Brazier’s surety undertaking. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta was committed to the District Court to stand trial for aggravated sexual assault. On 19 December 2001 in the District Court the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi. However, Mr Elgueta was charged with a number of other offences alleged to have been committed dating back to 1997, including breach of bail. On 29 October 2001, Mr Elgueta pleaded guilty to one offence of receiving stolen goods and four offences of breach of bail. The Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions sentenced Mr Elgueta to four months imprisonment on the receiving stolen goods offence and to one month imprisonment on each of the breach of bail offences. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
Mr Marco Elgueta was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Mr Michael Brazier was approved as surety for Mr Elgueta in the sum of $10 000 on 22 May 1997. Subsequently, Mr Brazier applied to the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions to be discharged from his surety obligation. The magistrate did not grant that application because under the Bail Act 1982 the defendant is required to be present when such an application is made. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta failed to appear at the Fremantle court on 8 July 1997. Consequently, Mr Brazier was summonsed to the Fremantle court to show cause why his surety obligation should not be forfeited. On 6 November 1997 an order was made by the Fremantle court for the forfeiture of the full amount of $10 000 of Mr Brazier’s surety undertaking. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta was committed to the District Court to stand trial for aggravated sexual assault. On 19 December 2001 in the District Court the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi. However, Mr Elgueta was charged with a number of other offences alleged to have been committed dating back to 1997, including breach of bail. On 29 October 2001, Mr Elgueta pleaded guilty to one offence of receiving stolen goods and four offences of breach of bail. The Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions sentenced Mr Elgueta to four months imprisonment on the receiving stolen goods offence and to one month imprisonment on each of the breach of bail offences. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
On 19 December 2001 in the District Court the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi. However, Mr Elgueta was charged with a number of other offences alleged to have been committed dating back to 1997, including breach of bail. On 29 October 2001, Mr Elgueta pleaded guilty to one offence of receiving stolen goods and four offences of breach of bail. The Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions sentenced Mr Elgueta to four months imprisonment on the receiving stolen goods offence and to one month imprisonment on each of the breach of bail offences. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - Mr Marco Elgueta was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Mr Michael Brazier was approved as surety for Mr Elgueta in the sum of $10 000 on 22 May 1997. Subsequently, Mr Brazier applied to the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions to be discharged from his surety obligation. The magistrate did not grant that application because under the Bail Act 1982 the defendant is required to be present when such an application is made. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta failed to appear at the Fremantle court on 8 July 1997. Consequently, Mr Brazier was summonsed to the Fremantle court to show cause why his surety obligation should not be forfeited. On 6 November 1997 an order was made by the Fremantle court for the forfeiture of the full amount of $10 000 of Mr Brazier’s surety undertaking. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta was committed to the District Court to stand trial for aggravated sexual assault. On 19 December 2001 in the District Court the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi. However, Mr Elgueta was charged with a number of other offences alleged to have been committed dating back to 1997, including breach of bail. On 29 October 2001, Mr Elgueta pleaded guilty to one offence of receiving stolen goods and four offences of breach of bail. The Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions sentenced Mr Elgueta to four months imprisonment on the receiving stolen goods offence and to one month imprisonment on each of the breach of bail offences. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - Mr Marco Elgueta was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Mr Michael Brazier was approved as surety for Mr Elgueta in the sum of $10 000 on 22 May 1997. Subsequently, Mr Brazier applied to the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions to be discharged from his surety obligation. The magistrate did not grant that application because under the Bail Act 1982 the defendant is required to be present when such an application is made. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta failed to appear at the Fremantle court on 8 July 1997. Consequently, Mr Brazier was summonsed to the Fremantle court to show cause why his surety obligation should not be forfeited. On 6 November 1997 an order was made by the Fremantle court for the forfeiture of the full amount of $10 000 of Mr Brazier’s surety undertaking. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta was committed to the District Court to stand trial for aggravated sexual assault. On 19 December 2001 in the District Court the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi. However, Mr Elgueta was charged with a number of other offences alleged to have been committed dating back to 1997, including breach of bail. On 29 October 2001, Mr Elgueta pleaded guilty to one offence of receiving stolen goods and four offences of breach of bail. The Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions sentenced Mr Elgueta to four months imprisonment on the receiving stolen goods offence and to one month imprisonment on each of the breach of bail offences. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
Mr Marco Elgueta was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Mr Michael Brazier was approved as surety for Mr Elgueta in the sum of $10 000 on 22 May 1997. Subsequently, Mr Brazier applied to the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions to be discharged from his surety obligation. The magistrate did not grant that application because under the Bail Act 1982 the defendant is required to be present when such an application is made. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta failed to appear at the Fremantle court on 8 July 1997. Consequently, Mr Brazier was summonsed to the Fremantle court to show cause why his surety obligation should not be forfeited. On 6 November 1997 an order was made by the Fremantle court for the forfeiture of the full amount of $10 000 of Mr Brazier’s surety undertaking. Subsequently, Mr Elgueta was committed to the District Court to stand trial for aggravated sexual assault. On 19 December 2001 in the District Court the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi. However, Mr Elgueta was charged with a number of other offences alleged to have been committed dating back to 1997, including breach of bail. On 29 October 2001, Mr Elgueta pleaded guilty to one offence of receiving stolen goods and four offences of breach of bail. The Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions sentenced Mr Elgueta to four months imprisonment on the receiving stolen goods offence and to one month imprisonment on each of the breach of bail offences. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
On 19 December 2001 in the District Court the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi. However, Mr Elgueta was charged with a number of other offences alleged to have been committed dating back to 1997, including breach of bail. On 29 October 2001, Mr Elgueta pleaded guilty to one offence of receiving stolen goods and four offences of breach of bail. The Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions sentenced Mr Elgueta to four months imprisonment on the receiving stolen goods offence and to one month imprisonment on each of the breach of bail offences. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
The court made no order for forfeiture of the $10 000 condition of bail; that is, the court did not require Mr Elgueta to forfeit his bail undertaking of $10 000. In addition to Mr Brazier unsuccessfully seeking to have his security discharged by the Fremantle court, Mr Brazier asked the Governor to remit the order for forfeiture under the provisions of section 49(1)(e) of the Bail Act. This request was also unsuccessful. Mr Brazier may again make a similar request of the Governor. However, Mr Brazier, as surety, must satisfy the Governor that new facts have been discovered or new circumstances have arisen that show there was reasonable cause for the failure of Mr Elgueta to attend the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions in 1997. An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
An appeal pursuant to the Justices Act 1902 was also lodged on behalf of Mr Brazier. However, that appeal was subsequently abandoned. Advice from the Crown Solicitor has also ruled out a request on behalf of Mr Brazier for an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in accordance with part 19 of the Sentencing Act 1995. As indicated above, the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions has considered and made decisions regarding both Mr Brazier’s surety and Mr Elgueta’s bail undertaking. Unless, as indicated above, Mr Brazier satisfies the Governor, Mr Brazier must pay the $10 000 that the court ordered to be forfeited on 6 November 1997.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.