Aldridge v The Queen

The case of *Aldridge v The Queen* concerned an application for bail pending appeal made by Edward Graham Aldridge to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Aldridge had been sentenced to three years and six months imprisonment for offences including burglary, aggravated burglary, and theft, with a non-parole period of two years. He appealed against the severity of his sentence and the process by which it was determined.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to grant bail pending appeal, and if so, whether special or exceptional circumstances justified its grant. The court also had to consider the prospects of success on appeal and the practical implications of the custodial portion of the sentence being substantially served before the appeal could be heard.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction to grant bail pending appeal, noting that this requires the establishment of special or exceptional circumstances. While strong grounds for the appeal to be allowed and the custodial portion of the sentence to be substantially served are typically required, the court found that the specific circumstances of this case warranted a departure from this strict test. The significant delay in bringing the appeal to a hearing, for which Mr Aldridge was not primarily responsible, meant that the appeal would likely be rendered largely ineffective if bail were not granted. Although the grounds of appeal were not demonstrably strong, they were considered arguable. Furthermore, the court took into account the recent birth of Mr Aldridge's second child, his partner's post-natal depression and her subsequent sentence of periodic detention, which would leave their young children without adequate care. The court concluded that these combined factors constituted special or exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.

The court ordered that the parties be heard on the appropriate conditions to be imposed on the grant of bail to Mr Aldridge. It was made clear that if the appeal were dismissed, the full term of the non-parole period would still need to be served.