Parnis, J.F. v Queen Summary

AUSTRALIA L
%M<&

JUDGES'CHAMBERS
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

a 9 ,?3

JUDGMENT No. ...,.,...o .... ,... . l O1l . l l l

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

i .

No. ACT G 98 of 1993

DISTRICT REGISTRY 1 \
I
GENERAL DIVISION 1
BETWEEN: JOHN FRANCIS PARNIS
Applicant

AND: THE OUEEN

Respondent

Neaves J. RECEIVED

29 October 1993 FEDERAL COURT OF
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(EX TEMPOREL

This is an application, by motion on notice, by John Francis Parnis ("the applicant") for bail pending the hearing of an appeal, instituted by him in this Court on 28 October 1993, against the sentence-S imposed upon him in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Gallop J.) on 27 October 1993. Sentences were imposed in

pleaded guilty. He was sentenced in respect of each offence respect of 7 offences of theft to which the applicant had to imprisonment for 6 months, the sentences to be served

cumulatively, making a total sentence of imprisonment for three and a half years. A non-parole period of 18 months was fixed.

On the hearing of the motion I have had the benefit of substantial argument both in support of, and against, the granting of the relief sought. I have been referred not only to the affidavit in support of the application but to the remarks of the sentencing Judge when sentencing the applicant on 27 October 1993. I have also been referred to some other material and to a number of decided cases in relation to the principles to be applied when an application for bail is made in such circumstances as these.

Counsel for the applicant, recognising the burden which it was necessary for the applicant to discharge if the motion is to be successful, has urged everything that could be said in favour of the granting of bail. Consideration of those matters, however, leads me to the conclusion that they are not sufficiently compelling to warrant the granting of the application. The motion is, therefore, dismissed.
I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable M r Justice Neaves h

Dated: 29 October 1993

Counsel for the applicant : Mr B.J. Salmon QC
Solicitors for the applicant : Legal Aid Office (ACT)

Counsel for the respondent : Mr J. Ibbotson
Solicitor for the respondent : Director of Public
Prosecutions (ACT)

Date of hearing : 29 October 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, John Francis Parnis applied for bail pending the hearing of an appeal against his sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The applicant had pleaded guilty to seven offences of theft and was sentenced to imprisonment for three and a half years, with a non-parole period of 18 months. The legal issues in this case revolved around the principles applicable to the grant of bail in such circumstances and whether the applicant's circumstances warranted the grant of bail pending appeal. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties, including the applicant's affidavit, the sentencing judge's remarks, and relevant case law. Despite the applicant's counsel urging various factors in favor of granting bail, the court concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently discharged the burden required to warrant the granting of the application. Consequently, the motion for bail was dismissed.

The court's reasoning was based on a thorough examination of the relevant legal principles and the specific circumstances of the applicant. The applicant bore the burden of demonstrating that the granting of bail was warranted, and the court found that the arguments presented did not meet this standard. The court took into account the severity of the sentence, the non-parole period, and the nature of the offences committed. The court also considered the remarks made by the sentencing judge, which highlighted the seriousness of the crimes and the need for deterrence. Ultimately, the court determined that the applicant's circumstances did not justify the grant of bail pending the appeal hearing.

Parnis, J.F. v Queen

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

pleaded guilty. He was sentenced in respect of each offence respect of 7 offences of theft to which the applicant had	to imprisonment for 6 months, the sentences to be served
cumulatively, making a total sentence of imprisonment for three and a half years. A non-parole period of 18 months was fixed.
On the hearing of the motion I have had the benefit of substantial argument both in support of, and against, the granting of the relief sought. I have been referred not only to the affidavit in support of the application but to the remarks of the sentencing Judge when sentencing the applicant on 27 October 1993. I have also been referred to some other material and to a number of decided cases in relation to the principles to be applied when an application for bail is made in such circumstances as these.
Counsel for the applicant, recognising the burden which it was necessary for the applicant to discharge if the motion is to be successful, has urged everything that could be said in favour of the granting of bail. Consideration of those matters, however, leads me to the conclusion that they are not sufficiently compelling to warrant the granting of the application. The motion is, therefore, dismissed.