Degioannis v David

Case [2015] ACTSC 166


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Degioannis v David

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 166

Hearing Date:

17, 18 June 2015

DecisionDate:

18 June 2015

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

Bail is refused

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – application for bail pending hearing of appeal from decision of Magistrates Court – significant portion of immediate custodial time to be served before appeal could be heard – prospects of success not apparently good – special or exceptional circumstances not established – bail refused.

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 9E

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 216

Cases Cited:

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

In the matter of an application for bail by Fakatounaulupe Ngata [2015] ACTSC 139

R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17

R v Bao [2013] ACTSC, Penfold J (16 September 2013)
R v Leach [2011] ACTSC, Penfold J (1 February 2011)
R v Thompson [2011] ACTSC, Higgins CJ (10 June 2011)
R v Wagle (No. 2) [2014] ACTSC 160

Re Application for Bail by Zoudi (2006) 168 A Crim R 444

Sherd v The Queen (2011) 5 ACTLR 290

The Queen v Williams [2014] ACTCA 30

Parties:

Shannon David Degioannis (Appellant)

Joshua David (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms H Hayunga (Appellant)

Ms S Gul (Respondent)

Solicitors

Legal Aid ACT (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Numbers:

SCA 18 of 2015; SCA 42 of 2015

Introduction

  1. Shannon Degioannis has applied for what is often referred to as appeal bail.  He was found guilty in the Magistrates Court on 13 February this year of an offence of intentional wounding and was immediately remanded in custody.  He was then sentenced in April this year to 15 months imprisonment to be suspended after nine months. 

  1. He has appealed both his conviction and his sentence. 

  1. Under s 216 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), the appeal operates to stay the conviction and sentence, and under that section he is entitled to apply for bail.

  1. The applicant’s appeal is currently listed for hearing on 27 August this year, but I was told yesterday that it may be able to be heard on 28 July this year when a half-day is available. 

The bail application

  1. Under s 9E of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), there is a presumption against bail being granted when a sentence is stayed by an appeal. This is effected by a legislative requirement that bail must not be granted unless the court is satisfied that special or exceptional circumstances exist favouring the granting of bail. The applicant points to the following matters as special or exceptional circumstances.

Special or exceptional circumstances

  1. First, the applicant says that by the time his appeal is heard on 27 August, he will have served nearly seven months of his current nine months immediate custodial time, or nearly six months if the appeal can be brought forward as mentioned. 

  1. Secondly, while conceding that neither of these matters would constitute special…

Continue reading Degioannis v David

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Degioannis v David [2015] ACTSC 166
Case
[2015] ACTSC 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was lodged by the appellant, Degioannis, against a decision of the Magistrates Court which had denied him bail. The appellant was awaiting the outcome of a hearing on charges of aggravated break and enter, and aggravated robbery. The Magistrates Court had concluded that bail should be refused due to the seriousness of the offence and the risk of reoffending. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing this decision and determining whether the appellant should be granted bail pending the appeal.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the appellant's prospects of success on appeal were sufficiently strong to warrant bail, and if there were any special or exceptional circumstances that should be considered. The court examined the appellant's previous criminal history and the nature of the current charges. The appellant had argued that the significant amount of time he would spend in custody before his appeal could be heard constituted an exceptional circumstance. However, the court found that his prospects of success on appeal were not apparently good, and that the appellant had not established any special or exceptional circumstances that would warrant a grant of bail.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's prospects of success on appeal were not promising, and that there were no special or exceptional circumstances present in this case that would warrant the grant of bail. The significant time the appellant would spend in custody before his appeal could be heard did not, in the court's view, constitute a special or exceptional circumstance. Therefore, the appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court was dismissed, and bail was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail is 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.