AHMAD -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 266

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 266
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL	Published:	23/09/2002
Case No:	CCA:78/2002	Heard:	12 SEPTEMBER 2002
Coram:	SCOTT J	Delivered:	12/09/02
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SYED REDZA FAROUK AHMAD THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Jurisdiction, practice and procedure Bail Application for bail pending appeal against sentence Appeal against conviction heard and refused prior to bail application Exceptional circumstances required Sch 1, Pt C, cl 4 of Bail Act 1982
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982
Case References:	Ahmad v The Queen [2002] WASCA 70 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65 Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Mullally v The Queen (2000) WASCA 26 Robinson v The Queen (1991) 65 ALJR 519 United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 75 ALJR 1663

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : AHMAD -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 266 CORAM : SCOTT J HEARD : 12 SEPTEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 12 SEPTEMBER 2002 PUBLISHED : 23 SEPTEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 78 of 2002 BETWEEN : SYED REDZA FAROUK AHMAD

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Bail - Application for bail pending appeal against sentence - Appeal against conviction heard and refused prior to bail application - Exceptional circumstances required - Sch 1, Pt C, cl 4 of Bail Act 1982

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982

Result:

Bail refused

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr P J Urquhart

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Ahmad v The Queen [2002] WASCA 70
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65
Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91

Case(s) also cited:

Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Mullally v The Queen (2000) WASCA 26
Robinson v The Queen (1991) 65 ALJR 519
United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 75 ALJR 1663

(Page 3)

1 SCOTT J: This application for bail pending an appeal against sentence was heard on Thursday, 12 September 2002. The application was dismissed with reasons to be published at a later date. These are those reasons.

2 The applicant was charged with and convicted of a number of serious offences in the District Court. That conviction occurred in August 1999. The applicant deposes that he was convicted of one count of aggravated burglary; six counts of deprivation of liberty; one count of kidnapping; and one count of extortion.

3 The applicant appealed against his conviction and the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed that appeal: see Ahmad v The Queen [2002] WASCA 70. I am told by counsel that the applicant has sought special leave to appeal to the High Court.

4 The facts relating to each…

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 Ahmad v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ahmad v The Queen [2002] WASCA 266
Case: [2002] WASCA 266
Decision Date: 23 SEPTEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ahmad v The Queen was heard by the High Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the appellant's application for bail pending an appeal against his sentence. The appellant had previously had his appeal against conviction heard and refused, but was now seeking bail pending a further appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's application for bail could succeed in the absence of exceptional circumstances, as required by clause 4 of Part C of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1982.

The court examined the requirements for granting bail pending an appeal against sentence, as set out in the Bail Act 1982. It noted that the appellant's previous appeal against conviction had been refused, and that this in itself did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting bail. The court held that in order for an appellant to be granted bail pending a further appeal, there must be some special or exceptional circumstance that justifies the granting of bail. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any such circumstances, and accordingly refused the application for bail.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the circumstances of the case. It held that the appellant had not satisfied the criteria for bail pending appeal, and that there were no exceptional circumstances present that would warrant a departure from the usual rules. The court emphasised the importance of the principle that bail is not a right, but rather a matter of discretion to be exercised in accordance with the law. In light of this, the court determined that the application for bail should be refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application for bail be refused. The court's decision highlights the stringent requirements that must be met in order for an appellant to be granted bail pending a further appeal, and underscores the importance of the principle that bail is not a right, but rather a matter of discretion to be exercised in accordance with the law.

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.