Legal Research
Cases
Norton v The Queen

Norton v The Queen

Case [2001] WASCA 164 23 May 2001

Bail

Appeal

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: NORTON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 164

CORAM: SCOTT J

HEARD: 17 MAY 2001

DELIVERED : 17 MAY 2001

PUBLISHED : 23 MAY 2001

FILE NO/S: CCA 65 of 2001

BETWEEN: ROBERT MICHAEL NORTON
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Bail - Application for bail pending appeal - Exceptional circumstances required for two reasons - Neither established

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982, Schedule 1 Part C cl 3A, cl 4

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms C S Amsden
Respondent: Ms L Petrusa

Solicitors:

Applicant: Legal Aid of Western Australia
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Bond v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920322; 12 June 1992
Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91
Chamberlain v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 514
Marotta v The Queen [1999] HCA 4
Nguyen v The Queen [2001] WASCA 137
R v Miller [2001] WASC 81
Speed v The Queen [2001] WASCA 125

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

SCOTT J: By notice of motion dated 11 May 2001, the applicant applied for bail pending appeal. The matter came on for hearing on 17 May 2001 and on that date the application was dismissed. I indicated to counsel that I would later give reasons for having reached that view. These are those reasons.
On 9 May 2001 the applicant was sentenced to a term of 6 years' imprisonment for the offence of armed robbery in company. On the same day he was also sentenced to a term of 5 years' imprisonment for the offence of assault with intent to steal. Those sentences were ordered to run concurrently and backdated to commence on 3 April 2001.
The applicant's involvement in that chapter of criminality is set out in the affidavit of Linda Petrusa, sworn 17 May 2001. In that affidavit, Ms Petrusa deposes to the chronology of events surrounding the applicant's alleged involvement in criminality. The offences in relation to which the applicant was sentenced on 9 May 2001 occurred on 18 May 2000 at Burswood. The circumstances surrounding the convictions were that the applicant and others went to the Burswood car park with a view to committing an assault on homosexual men. The applicant took with him a metal pole. Others were also armed. At the car park the group identified two complainants and started abusing them. One of the group (not the applicant) demanded money and one of the complainants had his car keys snatched from him and was then struck on the legs with a weapon. A second complainant was punched in the head and then hit with a piece of wood and another weapon. The trial Judge concluded that it was the applicant who used the piece of wood.
The two juveniles involved in this attack, in company with the applicant, used the stolen car keys to take the car to…

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 Norton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Norton v The Queen [2001] WASCA 164
Case: [2001] WASCA 164
Decision Date: 23 MAY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Norton, was convicted of drug trafficking offences and sentenced to imprisonment. He sought bail pending an appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The application was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which considered the criteria for granting bail pending appeal under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 1995. The primary issues for the court were whether the appellant had established exceptional circumstances to justify bail, and whether there were compelling reasons why justice required the appellant to be granted bail pending appeal. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, including the appellant's submissions regarding his prospects of success on appeal, his ties to the community, and the risk of reoffending.

The court found that the appellant had not established exceptional circumstances for bail, as he had not demonstrated a real prospect of success on appeal or that there were compelling reasons why he should be granted bail. The court held that the appellant's arguments regarding his prospects of success on appeal were speculative and did not provide a sufficient basis for granting bail. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's ties to the community were not strong enough to outweigh the risk of reoffending, and that there were no compelling reasons why justice required the appellant to be granted bail pending appeal. The court concluded that the appellant had not satisfied the criteria for bail pending appeal under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 1995.

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appellant's application for bail pending appeal, finding that he had not established exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons for being granted bail. The court emphasised the importance of the exceptional circumstances test and the need for a real prospect of success on appeal in order to grant bail pending appeal. The court also noted that the risk of reoffending and the appellant's ties to the community were relevant factors to consider in determining whether bail should be granted. The Full Court's decision in this case provides guidance to practitioners on the criteria for granting bail pending appeal and the importance of establishing exceptional circumstances.

Orders