Chew v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for bail by the applicant, Chew, represented by Mr I.L.K. Marshall. The respondent was represented by Mr A. Rope. The applicant sought bail on the basis that his non-parole period was due to expire on 19 February, and there was a significant possibility that the hearing of his appeal would not conclude and a decision would not be handed down before that date.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether bail should be granted to the applicant, notwithstanding that his appeal had not yet been heard, given the imminent expiry of his non-parole period. The applicant argued that requiring him to remain in custody until the appeal was determined would render a successful appeal largely pointless, as he would have already served the custodial portion of his sentence.

Mr Marshall contended that the principle established in cases such as *Howe* supported the grant of bail in these circumstances, where the sentence's non-parole period would expire before an appeal decision was likely. He submitted that the Court's inherent power to grant bail could be exercised in exceptional circumstances to prevent the futility of its appellate jurisdiction. The applicant, a legal practitioner, was aware that if his appeal was unsuccessful, he would be required to serve the remaining 118 days of his sentence, but he wished to pursue the application regardless.