Marotta v The Queen; King v The Queen; Bull v The Queen (P5-1998) [1999] HCA 4 Date of Order: 8 December 1998 Date of Publication of Reasons: 9 February 1999
ORDER
The appellant be admitted to bail pending the determination of his appeal to this Court on the following conditions:
That the appellant reside with his parents at 148 Whitfield Street, Bassendean.
That the appellant enter into a bail undertaking in the form of Form 6 of the Bail Regulations (WA), in which he agrees to forfeit $10,000 to the Crown if he is convicted of the offence of failing to appear as required.
A person approved by a Justice of the Peace enter into a surety undertaking in writing that he will, subject to the Bail Act 1982 (WA), forfeit $10,000 if the appellant fails to comply with any requirement of his bail undertaking.
That on a date to be fixed by notice to him in writing by the Deputy Registrar of this Court, as the date on which his appeal will be heard and determined, he surrender himself to the Sheriff of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to serve any balance of his sentence then
2
remaining unserved in accordance with the warrant of commitment pursuant to which he is confined at that time.
The appellant shall not communicate with the complainant named in the indictment or any other prosecution witness either directly or indirectly.
Representation:
R K Williamson for the appellant (instructed by Williamson & Co)
B Fiannaca with V R Campbell for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Australia))
Notice: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CALLINAN J
Matter No P8/1998
RODNEY WILLIAM KING APPELLANT
AND
THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 8 December 1998 Date of Publication of Reasons: 9 February 1999 P8/1998
ORDER
The appellant be admitted to bail pending the determination of his appeal to this Court on the following conditions:
That the appellant reside with his wife at 17 Clark Street, South Bunbury.
That the appellant enter into a bail undertaking in the form of Form 6 of the Bail Regulations (WA), in which he agrees to forfeit $10,000 to the Crown if he is convicted of the offence of failing to appear as required.
A person approved by a Justice of the Peace enter into a surety undertaking in writing that he will, subject to the Bail Act 1982 (WA), forfeit $10,000 if the appellant fails to comply with any requirement of his bail undertaking.
That on a date to be fixed by notice to him in writing by the Deputy Registrar of this Court, as the date on which his appeal will be heard and determined, he surrender himself to the Sheriff of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to…
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 Marotta v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Marotta v The Queen [1999] HCA 4
Case
[1999] HCA 4
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of *Marotta v The Queen* concerned an application for bail pending appeal made by the appellant, Marotta, to the High Court of Australia. The specific nature of the dispute, beyond the application for bail, is not detailed in the provided text, but it arises from a criminal conviction and sentence.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant should be granted bail pending the determination of his appeal. This required the Court to consider the relevant principles and criteria for granting bail in such circumstances, particularly in light of the appellant's confinement under a warrant of commitment.
In determining the application, the Court applied principles governing the grant of bail pending appeal, which typically involve assessing the prospects of the appeal, the risk of the appellant failing to appear, and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice. The Court ultimately ordered that the appellant be admitted to bail, subject to a strict set of conditions designed to mitigate any risks associated with his release. These conditions included residing with his parents, entering into a substantial bail undertaking and surety undertaking, surrendering himself to serve any remaining sentence on a date to be fixed for the appeal hearing, and a prohibition on communicating with the complainant or prosecution witnesses.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appellant be admitted to bail pending the determination of his appeal to this Court on the following conditions:
1.
That the appellant reside with his parents at 148 Whitfield Street, Bassendean.
2.
That the appellant enter into a bail undertaking in the form of Form 6 of the Bail Regulations (WA), in which he agrees to forfeit $10,000 to the Crown if he is convicted of the offence of failing to appear as required.
3.
A person approved by a Justice of the Peace enter into a surety undertaking in writing that he will, subject to the Bail Act 1982 (WA), forfeit $10,000 if the appellant fails to comply with any requirement of his bail undertaking.
4.
That on a date to be fixed by notice to him in writing by the Deputy Registrar of this Court, as the date on which his appeal will be heard and determined, he surrender himself to the Sheriff of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to serve any balance of his sentence then
2
remaining unserved in accordance with the warrant of commitment pursuant to which he is confined at that time.
5.
The appellant shall not communicate with the complainant named in the indictment or any other prosecution witness either directly or indirectly.