In the matter of an application for bail by Shane William Sebbens
Case
•
[2014] ACTSC 281
•25 July 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
In the matter of an application for bail by Shane William Sebbens [2014] ACTSC 281
[2014] ACTSC 281
25 July 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Shane William Sebbens made an application for bail which was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Sebbens was facing criminal charges and had previously been denied bail by the Magistrates Court. He now sought bail on the basis of a change in circumstances, specifically his engagement in a work placement program. The court was required to determine whether there had been a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a hearing of the bail application and if it had jurisdiction to hear the application.
The court found that Sebbens’ engagement in the work placement program did not constitute a change in circumstances as it was information known to Sebbens at the time of the earlier bail application and had not been adduced. The court held that an application for bail could only be made on the basis of a change in circumstances that was not known to the applicant at the time of the earlier application. As Sebbens had not satisfied this requirement, the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application.
As the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application, it was dismissed. The court found that there had been no change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing of the bail application. The court noted that it was not appropriate to make any orders that would allow Sebbens to apply for bail again in the future, as he had not satisfied the requirements for a change in circumstances. The application for bail was therefore refused.
The court found that Sebbens’ engagement in the work placement program did not constitute a change in circumstances as it was information known to Sebbens at the time of the earlier bail application and had not been adduced. The court held that an application for bail could only be made on the basis of a change in circumstances that was not known to the applicant at the time of the earlier application. As Sebbens had not satisfied this requirement, the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application.
As the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application, it was dismissed. The court found that there had been no change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing of the bail application. The court noted that it was not appropriate to make any orders that would allow Sebbens to apply for bail again in the future, as he had not satisfied the requirements for a change in circumstances. The application for bail was therefore refused.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Bail
-
Change of Circumstances
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
R v Brown [2018] ACTSC 116
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Johnson v Powrie
[2018] ACTCA 46
R v Brown
[2018] ACTSC 116
R v Al-Harazi (No 4)
[2016] ACTSC 298
Cases Cited
18
Statutory Material Cited
5
In the matter of an application for bail by Serena Holmes
[2011] ACTSC 187
Luck v University of Southern Queensland
[2009] FCAFC 73
Holland v The Queen
[1993] HCA 43