Higgs v The Queen

Higgs sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence, applying for bail pending the outcome of that appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify the grant of bail while the appeal was being determined. A secondary issue was whether the prospects of success on appeal were sufficient to warrant bail. The court also had to consider the length of time Higgs had yet to serve before reaching his non-parole period.

The court examined the principles established in previous cases such as Re Zoudi, Cvetanovski, Agresta, Zirilli, and Visser. The applicant's prospects of success on appeal alone were not enough to warrant bail if exceptional circumstances were not present. The court noted that Higgs had a substantial term of imprisonment remaining before reaching his non-parole period, which was a factor against the grant of bail. While the court acknowledged that Higgs had raised arguable grounds for appeal, it found that these were not exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant bail. The court was also mindful of the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system and the potential risk to the community if bail were granted.

Based on the evidence and legal principles, the court found that exceptional circumstances had not been made out. The arguable grounds for appeal did not sufficiently justify the grant of bail, particularly given the substantial term of imprisonment Higgs still needed to serve. The court followed the decision in Re Zoudi and distinguished the cases of Cvetanovski, Agresta, Zirilli, and Visser, which did not apply to the unique circumstances of this case. Consequently, the application for bail was refused.

The final order of the court was that the application for bail pending the outcome of the appeal was dismissed. Higgs remained in custody pending the determination of his appeal against conviction and sentence.