Legal Research
Cases
McRoberts v The Queen

McRoberts v The Queen

Case [2018] NTCCA 11 2 July 2018

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:McRoberts v The Queen [2018] NTCCA 11

PARTIES: McROBERTS, John Ringland

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction
FILE NO:21616999
DELIVERED:  2 July 2018
HEARING DATES:  27 June 2018 and 2 July 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Southwood ACJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Appeal Bail – Bail Act 1982 (NT) s 23A – whether special or exceptional circumstances shown – prospects of success on appeal insufficient – real risk of miscarriage of justice not demonstrated at this stage of the appeal – no real hardship – bail refused
Bail Act 1982 (NT) s 23A.

Brent v The Queen (1994) 70 A Crim R 1, Caratti v The Queen (2001) 1 LegRep C1, Chamberlain v The Queen [No. 1] (1983) 153 CLR 514, Chew v The Queen [No 2] (1991) 66 ALJR 221, Doggett v The Queen (Bail Application) (Unreported, High Court, Callinan J, B 54/2000, 2 November 2000), Ex Parte Maher [1986] 1 Qd R 303, Hanson v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) (2003) 142 A Crim R 241, Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467, King v The Queen (1985) 17 A Crim R 184, King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423, Lane v The Queen [2017] VSCA 170, Marotta v The Queen (1998) 160 ALR 525 , Parsons v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1325 , Peters v The Queen (1996) 71 ALJR 309, R v Abbott (1997) 97 A Crim R 19, R v Giordano (1982) 31 SASR 241, R v Wilson (1994) 34 NSWLR 1, Re Clarkson [1986] VR 583, Re Jackson [1997] 2 VR 1, Re Pennant [1997] 2 VR 85, Re Zoudi (2016) 14 VR 580 , Robinson v The Queen (1991) 65 ALJR 519, Sinanovic v The Queen (No 1) (2001) 179 ALR 520, Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions (2000) 17 LegRep C13, United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 209 CLR 165, Velevski v The Queen (2000) 18 LegRep C2, Weston v The Queen (2000) 16 LegRep C2, Willers v The Queen (Bail Application) (unreported, WACCA, BC9503653, 7 June 1995), referred to.
J Willis, ‘Bail Pending Appeal after Conviction and Sentence on Indictment’ (2005) 29 Crim LJ 296.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:A Elliott
Respondent:  M Chalmers
Solicitors:
Appellant:S Ramdhas
Respondent:
Judgment category classification:   B
Judgment ID Number:  Sou1803
Number of pages:  23

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
McRoberts v The Queen [2018] NTCCA 11

No. 21616999

BETWEEN:
JOHN RINGLAND McROBERTS

Applicant
AND:
THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: Southwood ACJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 2 July 2018)
Southwood ACJ:

On 31 May 2018, following a six week trial, John Ringland McRoberts, the applicant, was found guilty by a jury of the crime of attempt to pervert the course of justice contrary to s 109 of the Criminal Code (NT).
On 26…

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 McRoberts v The Queen

Details

AGLC: McRoberts v The Queen [2018] NTCCA 11
Case: [2018] NTCCA 11
Decision Date: 2 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McRoberts applied to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory for bail pending an appeal against his conviction. The application was heard by Southwood ACJ.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether McRoberts had demonstrated "special or exceptional circumstances" warranting the grant of bail under section 23A of the *Bail Act 1982* (NT). This required the Court to consider the prospects of success on appeal and whether there was a real risk of a miscarriage of justice if bail were refused.

Southwood ACJ found that McRoberts had not established special or exceptional circumstances. His Honour concluded that the prospects of success on appeal were insufficient to satisfy the threshold required by the Act. Furthermore, the Court determined that a real risk of miscarriage of justice had not been demonstrated at this stage of the appeal proceedings, nor was there evidence of real hardship that would justify granting bail.

Consequently, the application for bail was refused.

Orders