LEWANDOWSKI -v- SHERMAN [2002] WASC 239

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 239
Case No:	MCS:63/2002	Heard:	14 OCTOBER 2002
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	14/10/02
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	ANTHONY LEWANDOWSKI SHAYNE SHERMAN
Catchwords:	Bail Application for bail before pending trial Charges of perjury and related offences Applicant not obliged to show exceptional circumstances Obligation on Crown to show that the applicant may not answer to bail Insufficient evidence in that regard Effect of conditions aimed at reducing the risk of flight Application for bail allowed
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982, s 13, s 14, s 22, s 23, Pt C Sch 1 Criminal Code 1913, s 124, s 125, s 129(1), s 143 Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996, s 5 Evidence Act, s 11 Justices Act 1902, s 69(7) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981
Case References:	Goldie v The Queen [2001] WASC 153 Jemielita v The Queen (1994) 12 WAR 362 Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199 Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321 R v Watson (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 100 Rus v The Queen [2000] WASC 297 Saka v The Queen[2001] WASC 92 WCVB v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 279 Alexopoulos v The Queen, unreported; SCt of Vic; (Hampel J); 23 February 1998 Gillis v Gawned (1992) 8 WAR 211 KM v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; (Nicholson J); Library No 7193; 14 July 1988 Marotta v The Queen (1998) 160 ALR 525 Parker & Ors v Miller & Ors, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; (Malcolm CJ); Library No 980249; 8 May 1998 R v Clarke II (2001) 118 A Crim R 585 R v Rechichi [1999] WASC 73

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : LEWANDOWSKI -v- SHERMAN [2002] WASC 239 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 14 OCTOBER 2002 DELIVERED : 14 OCTOBER 2002 FILE NO/S : MCS 63 of 2002 MATTER : Application for bail pursuant to s 14 of the Bail Act 1982 BETWEEN : ANTHONY LEWANDOWSKI

Applicant

AND

SHAYNE SHERMAN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Bail - Application for bail before pending trial - Charges of perjury and related offences - Applicant not obliged to show exceptional circumstances - Obligation on Crown to show that the applicant may not answer to bail - Insufficient evidence in that regard - Effect of conditions aimed at reducing the risk of flight - Application for bail allowed

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982, s 13, s 14, s 22, s 23, Pt C Sch 1

Criminal Code 1913, s 124, s 125, s 129(1), s 143
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996, s 5
Evidence Act, s 11
Justices Act 1902, s 69(7)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981

Result:

Application allowed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr M T Trowell QC & Mr L M Levy

Respondent : Ms A…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lewandowski v Sherman

Details

AGLC: Lewandowski v Sherman [2002] WASC 239
Case: [2002] WASC 239
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lewandowski v Sherman, Anthony Lewandowski applied for bail pending his trial for charges including perjury and related offences. The court had to balance the presumption of innocence against the public interest in the trial proceedings. The Crown opposed bail, arguing Lewandowski posed a significant flight risk and the charges were serious. However, the court found that the Crown had not demonstrated a sufficient degree of risk that Lewandowski would fail to appear for trial. The court allowed bail subject to conditions aimed at reducing the risk of non-appearance, including a personal bail undertaking, a surety undertaking by Lewandowski's mother, residence at a prescribed address, and regular reporting to police. The court held that the presumption of innocence and Lewandowski's residential and family links to the State weighed in favour of granting bail.

Orders