AC -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 280

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 280
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:127/2003	Heard:	23 OCTOBER 2003
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	23/10/03
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	AC THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Bail Application for bail pending hearing of appeal Need for exceptional reasons Prospects of success on appeal Appeal must be most likely to succeed
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982, s 13, s 14, s 22, cl 1, 3 & 4 of Pt C Sch 1 Child Welfare Act 1947, s 20B Criminal Code, s 189
Case References:	Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 1) (1983) 153 CLR 514 Marotta v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 265 Stalker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 364 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : AC -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 280 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 23 OCTOBER 2003 DELIVERED : 23 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 127 of 2003 BETWEEN : AC

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Bail - Application for bail pending hearing of appeal - Need for exceptional reasons - Prospects of success on appeal - Appeal must be most likely to succeed

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982, s 13, s 14, s 22, cl 1, 3 & 4 of Pt C Sch 1

Child Welfare Act 1947, s 20B
Criminal Code, s 189

Result:

Bail refused

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr B S Hanbury

Respondent : Mr I S Jones

Solicitors:

Applicant : Beau Hanbury

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 1) (1983) 153 CLR 514
Marotta v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 265
Stalker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 364

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

HASLUCK J

The application

1 The applicant has applied for bail after being convicted of certain offences before the District Court on 12 December 2002. He is presently serving a term of 4 years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole as from 12 December 2002. He has applied for leave to appeal against conviction in the terms of an amended application for leave dated 1 October 2003. The details of the application for bail are set out in the same application form.

2 The applicant seeks an order for bail pending the determination of the application for leave to appeal on such terms and conditions as this Honourable Court thinks fit to impose. I have been informed by defence counsel that the hearing of the application for leave to appeal will probably be brought before the Court in February 2004.

3 The application for bail comes before me pursuant to provisions of the Bail Act

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AC v The Queen

Details

AGLC: AC v The Queen [2003] WASCA 280
Case: [2003] WASCA 280
Decision Date: 23 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, AC, sought bail pending an appeal to the High Court against a conviction for drug trafficking. The applicant had been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which is the highest appellate court in Australia for matters of federal law. AC argued that the sentence was excessive and that there were grounds for an appeal to the High Court.

The legal issue before the court was whether there were exceptional reasons to grant bail pending the hearing of an appeal. The court noted that bail pending an appeal was not a matter of right and required the applicant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. The court considered whether there were prospects of success on appeal and whether the appeal was most likely to succeed. The court also considered the interests of justice, including the risk of flight and the risk of reoffending.

The court concluded that there were no exceptional reasons to grant bail. While the applicant argued that the sentence was excessive, the court found that the primary judge had adequately considered the matter and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court also found that the prospects of success on appeal were not high, as the appeal would need to address complex issues of law and evidence. The court noted that the appeal was not most likely to succeed and that the interests of justice did not favour the grant of bail. The Full Court therefore refused the application for bail.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.