Nona v The Queen (No 2)

The applicant, Nona, sought bail pending sentencing after being convicted of child sex offences. The application was heard by Refshauge J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The sole change in circumstances since conviction was the commencement of an appeal against that conviction.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the commencement of the appeal constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to justify granting bail, particularly in light of the nature of the offences and the absence of any challenge to the trial judge's application of section 22(2) of the *Bail Act 1992* (ACT).

Refshauge J reasoned that the mere fact of an appeal being lodged does not automatically demonstrate prospects of success that would justify granting bail. His Honour found that the appeal did not present any new circumstances or arguments that undermined the original conviction to a degree that would warrant releasing the applicant. Consequently, there was no justification for departing from the usual course of remanding the applicant in custody pending sentencing.

The application for bail was refused.