CLARK -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 91
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 91 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:37/2004 | 6 MAY 2004 | |
| Coram: | BARKER J | 10/05/04 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Applications dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : CLARK -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 91 CORAM : BARKER J HEARD : 6 MAY 2004 DELIVERED : 10 MAY 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 37 of 2004
- CCA 38 of 2004
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Bail application - Appeals pending - Bail Act 1982 (WA) - Clause 4, Pt C, Sch 1 Bail Act - "Exceptional reasons"
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 (WA)
Result:
Applications dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
CCA 37 of 2004
CCA 38 of 2004
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr S G Scott
Respondent : Mr S D Hall SC
Solicitors:
Appellant : Stables Scott
Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
CCA 41 of 2004
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr J A Davies
Respondent : Mr S D Hall SC
Solicitors:
Appellant : Jonathon Davies
Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87
Caratti v R [1999] WASCA 91
(Page 3)
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 1) (1983) 153 CLR 514
Peters v R (1996) 71 ALJR 309
R v Bernt (1994) 70 A Crim R 1
R v Dinh [2000] NSWCCA 536
Robinson v R (1991) 65 ALJR 519
Stalker v The Queen [2002] WASCA…
Continue reading Clark v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Clark v The Queen [2004] WASCA 91
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 91
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Clark, sought bail pending the outcome of an appeal against his conviction for a serious drug-related offence. The appeal was lodged with the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, while the bail application was before the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The respondent, The Queen, opposed the application on the basis that Clark was deemed a flight risk and a danger to the community, given the gravity of the offence and the sentence imposed. The matter hinged on whether the court could grant bail to Clark, considering the pending appeal and the terms of the Bail Act 1982 (WA).
The court was required to determine whether Clark's appeal constituted 'exceptional reasons' under clause 4 of Part C of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act, which would allow for the granting of bail despite the pending appeal. The court also needed to assess whether the applicant's circumstances warranted bail under the Bail Act, considering factors such as the likelihood of flight and the risk to the community. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant's appeal was exceptional enough to warrant bail, and if his circumstances justified the release on bail.
The court found that Clark's appeal did not constitute 'exceptional reasons' for granting bail as defined by the Bail Act. The court noted that the appeal did not involve any substantial legal issue that would likely lead to an acquittal or a reduced sentence. Additionally, the court was satisfied that Clark was a flight risk and a danger to the community. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for bail, holding that there were insufficient grounds to grant bail under the Bail Act, given the nature of the appeal and the applicant's circumstances. The applications were dismissed.
The court was required to determine whether Clark's appeal constituted 'exceptional reasons' under clause 4 of Part C of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act, which would allow for the granting of bail despite the pending appeal. The court also needed to assess whether the applicant's circumstances warranted bail under the Bail Act, considering factors such as the likelihood of flight and the risk to the community. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant's appeal was exceptional enough to warrant bail, and if his circumstances justified the release on bail.
The court found that Clark's appeal did not constitute 'exceptional reasons' for granting bail as defined by the Bail Act. The court noted that the appeal did not involve any substantial legal issue that would likely lead to an acquittal or a reduced sentence. Additionally, the court was satisfied that Clark was a flight risk and a danger to the community. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for bail, holding that there were insufficient grounds to grant bail under the Bail Act, given the nature of the appeal and the applicant's circumstances. The applications were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Applications dismissed
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.