EASTLEY -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 227
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 227 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:264/2001 | 20 JULY 2001 | |
| Coram: | WHITE AUJ | 30/07/01 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Bail refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ROBERT DARREN EASTLEY THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Application for bail after conviction and pending the hearing of an appeal against conviction Necessity for exceptional reasons why the defendant should not be kept in custody Strength of the appellant's case on appeal Likelihood that the appellant will have served a substantial part of his custodial sentence before the appeal is dealt with Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Bail Act 1982 (WA), Pt C, cl of Sch 1 |
Case References: | Crampton v R (2000) 176 ALR 369 Crofts v The Queen(1996) 186 CLR 427 In Re Cooper's Application for Bail (1961) ALR 584 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 Tran v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990117; 11 March 1999 Bond v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 920322; 12 June 1992 Caratti v R [1999] WASCA 91 Chamberlain v The Queen [No 1] (1983) 153 CLR 514 Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193 Marotta v The Queen [1999] HCA 4 Mullally v The Queen [2000] WASCA 26 Nguyen v The Queen [2001] WASCA 137 Norton v The Queen [2001] WASCA 164 Pearce v Stanton [1984] WAR 359 Robinson v R (1991) 65 ALJR 519 Sinanovic v The Queen (No 1) [2001] HCA 35 W (1994) 73 A Crim R 532 WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 Willers v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950284; 9 June 1995 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : EASTLEY -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 227 CORAM : WHITE AUJ HEARD : 20 JULY 2001 DELIVERED : 30 JULY 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 264 of 2001 BETWEEN : ROBERT DARREN EASTLEY
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Application for bail after conviction and pending the hearing of an appeal against conviction - Necessity for exceptional reasons why the defendant should not be kept in custody - Strength of the appellant's case on appeal - Likelihood that the appellant will have served a substantial part of his custodial sentence before the appeal is dealt with - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 (WA), Pt C, cl of Sch 1
Result:
Bail refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr D P A Moen
Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart
Solicitors:
Applicant : David Manera
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Crampton v R (2000) 176 ALR 369
Crofts v The Queen(1996) 186 CLR 427
In Re Cooper's Application for Bail (1961) ALR 584
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Tran v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990117; 11 March 1999
Case(s) also…
Continue reading Eastley v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Eastley v The Queen [2001] WASCA 227
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 227
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved an application for bail by the appellant, Eastley, following his conviction and while his appeal against the conviction was being heard. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether there were exceptional reasons that warranted the appellant not being kept in custody. The court was also required to consider the strength of the appellant's case on appeal and the likelihood that he would have served a substantial part of his sentence before the appeal was determined.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and the potential impact of releasing the appellant on bail. The court assessed the strength of the appellant's appeal, which included arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and potential legal errors during the trial. The court also evaluated the time it would take to hear and determine the appeal, considering that the appellant would have already served a significant portion of his sentence by then. The court determined that the circumstances did not present exceptional reasons for granting bail and that the appellant should remain in custody pending the outcome of the appeal.
Given the considerations above, the court refused the application for bail. The reasoning and outcome were based on the specific facts of the case, with the court concluding that exceptional reasons were not present to justify the appellant's release on bail. The orders of the court were to maintain the status quo, with the appellant remaining in custody.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and the potential impact of releasing the appellant on bail. The court assessed the strength of the appellant's appeal, which included arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and potential legal errors during the trial. The court also evaluated the time it would take to hear and determine the appeal, considering that the appellant would have already served a significant portion of his sentence by then. The court determined that the circumstances did not present exceptional reasons for granting bail and that the appellant should remain in custody pending the outcome of the appeal.
Given the considerations above, the court refused the application for bail. The reasoning and outcome were based on the specific facts of the case, with the court concluding that exceptional reasons were not present to justify the appellant's release on bail. The orders of the court were to maintain the status quo, with the appellant remaining in custody.
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.