Miles v R - [2012] NSWCCA 88

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miles v R [2012] NSWCCA 88
Hearing dates: 1 May 2012
Decision date: 01 May 2012
Before: Hoeben JA at [1]
RS Hulme J at [2]
Schmidt J at [8]
Decision:
Application for bail be dismissed.

Catchwords: BAIL PENDING APPEAL TO COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL - bail - bail review - unrepresented litigant - whether special or exceptional circumstances existed
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1978
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Petroulias v R [2010] NSWCCA 95
R v Joseph Antoun; R v Antoine Antoun [2005] NSWCCA 270
R v Wilson (1994) 34 NSWLR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Keith Miles (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr PG Ingram SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Applicant: (self represented)
Respondent: S Kavanagh, solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2006/8527
Publication restriction: No
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9111

Date of Decision:

2012-02-02 00:00:00

Before:

Fullerton J

File Number(s):

2006/8527

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HOEBEN JA: I agree with the reasons of Justice Schmidt and with the observations of Justice Hulme. I also join in Justice Hulme's recommendation to the Department of Corrective Services that it provide reasonable assistance and facilities to allow the applicant to prepare his appeal. Otherwise I agree with the orders proposed by Justice Schmidt. The orders of the Court will be those proposed by Justice Schmidt.

RS HULME J: I agree with the orders proposed by Schmidt J and substantially with her Honour's reasons. I would, however, add some remarks of my own. One of the matters referred to in s 32 of the Bail Act and which the Court is required to take into account in considering whether to grant bail is the interests of the applicant having regard to the needs of the person to be free to prepare for the person's appearance in Court or to obtain legal advice or both. Those needs are obviously greater in circumstances such as those we are informed exist here where the Legal Aid authorities have declined to assist the applicant in his appeal. Persons charged and persons convicted who have lodged an appeal are entitled to prepare their case or have their case adequately prepared for consideration by courts.

Recently I had occasion to grant bail to someone who would not otherwise have received it because on the evidence in that case the Corrective Services Department was not providing reasonable facilities for the applicant to prepare his case. The applicant today makes a similar complaint. He subpoenaed from the Corrective Services Department his file and, although it has not been formally tendered, in anticipation of the hearing today I skimmed through the many hundreds of pages which were there.

It is apparent that since December of last year the applicant has made a number of representations to the authorities for access to a legal library or cases contained therein and for time in which to prepare his appeal. Although in the documentation it is clear that to some degree the applicant's…

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 Miles v R

Details

AGLC: Miles v R [2012] NSWCCA 88
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 88
Decision Date: 01 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an unrepresented litigant, Miles, who appealed a decision by the District Court to refuse him bail pending an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Miles had been convicted of serious criminal offences and was awaiting sentencing. The primary issue before the court was whether there were any special or exceptional circumstances that warranted granting bail to Miles during the pendency of his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The court examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances that justified granting bail to the appellant. In assessing this, the court considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the risk of flight, the appellant's criminal history, and the likelihood of success of the appeal. The court also took into account the appellant's unrepresented status and the potential impact of continued detention on his ability to prepare for the appeal. The court found that while the offences were serious, the risk of flight was not significant, and there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted granting bail. The court concluded that the appeal was unlikely to succeed, and therefore, the appellant should remain in custody pending the outcome of the appeal.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and submissions presented. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted granting bail. The court emphasised the importance of the principle that bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, and that the burden of demonstrating such circumstances rested on the appellant. The court also noted that the appellant's unrepresented status did not automatically entitle him to bail, and that the court was required to consider the merits of the appeal and the risk of flight in making its decision. The court's decision was final, and the appellant remained in custody pending the outcome of his appeal.

Orders