Legal Research
Cases
Potier v R

Potier v R

Case [2011] NSWCCA 204 6 September 2011

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Potier v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 204
Hearing dates: 28 July 2011
Decision date: 06 September 2011
Before: Basten JA at 1;
Simpson J at 33;
Garling J at 46
Decision:
Direct that:
(1) the folder of materials be amended to remove duplicated material and any material not relied upon (including letters of a procedural kind) and a single typed index identifying each document included;
(2) the applicant file and serve a single document containing written submissions prepared by counsel, not to exceed 15 pages in length and not adopting other documents by reference;
(3) the respondent file and serve submissions in reply, not to exceed 15 pages in length and not adopting other documents by reference;
(4) the matter be listed before the Registrar for directions at 9am on 22 September, 2011. The directions shall include a timetable for the preceding steps.

Catchwords:
APPEAL - criminal - review of bail application - whether primary judge sitting in Court of Criminal Appeal

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - bail pending appeal

PROCEDURE - criminal - jurisdiction - constitution of Court of Criminal Appeal - whether primary judge sitting in Court of Criminal Appeal - power of the Court to grant bail - power to review the bail determination of primary judge - Bail Act 1979 (NSW), s 30; Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 3, 22
WORDS & PHRASES - "special and exceptional circumstances" - Bail Act 1979 (NSW), s 30AA
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1979 (NSW), ss 3, 4, 9D, 28, 30, 30AA, 44, 45, 46
Constitution, s 73
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 3, 6, 22
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 189
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 38-41
Cases Cited: Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; 238 CLR 218
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Cassaniti [2006] NSWCCA 335; 204 FLR 152
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Moradian; Saliba and Sparos [2010] NSWCCA 27
Elliott v The Queen [2007] HCA 51; 234 CLR 38
Gallagher v The Queen [1986] HCA 26; 160 CLR 392
Grierson v The King [1938] HCA 45; 60 CLR 431
Marotta v The Queen [1999] HCA 4; 73 ALJR 265
Mickelberg v The Queen [1989] HCA 35; 167 CLR 259
Petroulias v R [2010] NSWCCA 95
Potier v R [2010] NSWCCA 231
Potier v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 27
R v Burns (1920) 20 NSWSR 351
R v Potier [2005] NSWCCA 336
R v Wilson (1994) 34 NSWLR 1
Regina v JS (No 2) [2007] NSWCCA 309; 179 A Crim R 10
Regina v Potier [2011] NSWCCA 170
Stewart v The King [1921] HCA 17; 29 CLR 234
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Malcolm Huntley Potier - Applicant
Regina - Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:

Mr D J Brezniak - Applicant
Mr T R Bailey - Respondent
Solicitors:
Applicant self-represented
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent

File Number(s): CCA 2005/14700
Decision…

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 Potier v R

Details

AGLC: Potier v R [2011] NSWCCA 204
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 204
Decision Date: 06 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this matter was appealing against the decision of a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeal to dismiss an application for bail. The matter involved a review of a decision of a primary judge to refuse bail to the appellant pending appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge was sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal when he made the bail determination, and whether the court had the power to grant bail or to review the bail determination of the primary judge.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, including the Bail Act 1979 (NSW) and the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The court found that the primary judge was sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal when he made the bail determination, and therefore had the power to grant bail or to review the bail determination of the primary judge. The court also considered the meaning of "special and exceptional circumstances" under section 30AA of the Bail Act, and found that the primary judge had not erred in his assessment of the bail application. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the primary judge to refuse bail to the appellant.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant remain in custody. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that there were special and exceptional circumstances that warranted the grant of bail pending appeal. The court also found that the primary judge had not erred in his assessment of the bail application, and that the decision to refuse bail was a reasonable one in the circumstances.

Orders