Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia

Milenkovski sought bail against the State of Western Australia, raising issues about the interpretation of the Bail Act 1982 (WA). The applicant argued that the scope of the 'exceptional circumstances' test should extend beyond the statutorily specified criteria, and that the Act was not a code, which would allow for the application of common law principles. The State argued that the Act was a code and that the 'exceptional circumstances' test was limited to the statutory criteria. The central question for the court was whether the 'exceptional circumstances' test under the Bail Act 1982 (WA) was confined to the statutory criteria or if it could incorporate broader considerations, and whether the Act was a code that precluded the application of common law principles.

The court held that the Bail Act 1982 (WA) was a code, and the decision-maker's task under clause 1 of Part C of Schedule 1 of the Act was to apply the statutory criteria for bail. The court found that the 'exceptional circumstances' test was confined to the statutory criteria, and that the common law presumption for or against bail did not apply. The court also held that the decision-maker was required to consider the statutory criteria and the 'exceptional circumstances' test in a structured and methodical manner, but that this did not mean that the decision-maker had to follow a rigid checklist. The court concluded that the decision-maker had to exercise their discretion in a way that was consistent with the purpose and object of the Act.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that the 'exceptional circumstances' test should extend beyond the statutory criteria, and held that the decision-maker's task was to apply the statutory criteria and the 'exceptional circumstances' test in a manner that was consistent with the purpose and object of the Act. The court found that the decision-maker had considered the statutory criteria and the 'exceptional circumstances' test, and had exercised their discretion in a way that was consistent with the purpose and object of the Act. The application for bail was dismissed.