MULLALLY -v- THE QUEEN [1999] WASCA 263

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 263
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:227/1999	Heard:	12 NOVEMBER 1999
Coram:	HEENAN J	Delivered:	19/11/99
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Bail refused
PDF Version

Parties:	PATRICK EDWARD MULLALLY THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Bail Application pending appeal Substantial part of sentence likely to be served before hearing Prospects of success Exceptional circumstances claimed
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 Sch 1 Pt C cl 1, cl 3 and cl 4
Case References:	Nil Bernt v The Queen (1994) 70 A Crim R 1 Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 1991 Chamberlain v The Queen [1] (1983) 153 CLR 514 Marotta v The Queen [1999] HCA 4 Tran v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 990117; 11 March 1999

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MULLALLY -v- THE QUEEN [1999] WASCA 263 CORAM : HEENAN J HEARD : 12 NOVEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 19 NOVEMBER 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 227 of 1999 BETWEEN : PATRICK EDWARD MULLALLY

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Bail - Application pending appeal - Substantial part of sentence likely to be served before hearing - Prospects of success - Exceptional circumstances claimed

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 Sch 1 Pt C cl 1, cl 3 and cl 4

Result:

Bail refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr T F Percy QC

Respondent : Mr J MacTaggart

Solicitors:

Appellant : Judith Wickham & Associates

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Bernt v The Queen (1994) 70 A Crim R 1
Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 1991
Chamberlain v The Queen [1] (1983) 153 CLR 514
Marotta v The Queen [1999] HCA 4
Tran v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 990117; 11 March 1999

(Page 3)

1 HEENAN J: On 21 October 1999 after a four day trial in the District Court at Perth before her Honour Judge Deane and a jury Patrick Edward Mullally was convicted of stealing $26,678.23. On the following day her Honour sentenced him to imprisonment for two years. Having filed a notice of appeal against conviction he now seeks bail pending hearing of the appeal.

2 The Crown case at the trial can be summarised as follows. For many years Mr Neville Bolger had conducted a transport business under the name of New England Freight Lines. On the advice of his accountant he founded a company, Boltrans Nominees Pty Ltd, of which he and his wife were directors and which took over the business. The company traded under the same business name. In 1992 Mr Bolger suffered a serious injury which prevented him from working. Thereafter the company failed to repay various moneys which it had borrowed. The Commonwealth Bank,…

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 Mullally v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mullally v The Queen [1999] WASCA 263
Case: [1999] WASCA 263
Decision Date: 19 NOVEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mullally v The Queen involved the applicant, Mullally, seeking bail pending an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mullally had been convicted of various serious criminal offences and was serving a significant prison sentence. He sought bail pending the determination of his appeal, arguing that a substantial part of his sentence would have been served by the time the appeal was heard, and that he had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the likelihood of success on appeal and whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant the granting of bail.

The court considered the principles governing bail pending appeal, emphasising the importance of the applicant demonstrating both a reasonable prospect of success and the absence of substantial prejudice to the administration of justice if bail were granted. The court noted that while a substantial part of the sentence being served before the appeal was heard could be a factor, it was not determinative. The applicant needed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of bail. The court assessed the evidence and submissions made by Mullally and concluded that he had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances or a reasonable prospect of success on appeal sufficient to warrant bail.

In reaching its decision, the court highlighted that Mullally had not presented compelling evidence to support the exceptional circumstances claim, nor had he shown a strong likelihood of success on appeal. The court was mindful of the need to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and the potential impact on victims. Given these considerations, the court determined that it was not in the interests of justice to grant Mullally bail pending his appeal. The appeal against the refusal of bail was dismissed, and Mullally remained in custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.