R v Antoun - [2005] NSWCCA 270

CITATION:
R v Joseph Antoun; R v Antoine Antoun [2005] NSWCCA 270

HEARING DATE(S): 1 August 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

1 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Simpson J at 1; Johnson J at 1; Rothman J at 1

DECISION:
Each applicant granted bail subject to conditions

CATCHWORDS:
application for bail pending determation of appeal to the High Court of Australia

LEGISLATION CITED:

Bail Act 1958, s4, s28, s30, s30AA

CASES CITED:
R v Wilson (1994) 34 NSWLR 1

PARTIES:
Crown - Respondent
Joseph Antoun - First Aplicant
Antoine Antoun - Second Applicant

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/1959; 2004/1961

COUNSEL:
LMB Lampratti SC - Crown
C Steirn SC - First Applicant
S Wilkinson - Second Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh - Crown
Ryan & Bosscher - Applicants

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
60046/2004; 60047/2004

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Dowd J Hislop J Smart AJ

2004/1959; 2004/1961

SIMPSON J
JOHNSON J
ROTHMAN J
Monday 1 August 2005

REGINA v Joseph ANTOUN

REGINA v Antoine ANTOUN

Judgment

1 THE COURT: Sections 30 and 30AA of the Bail Act 1978 relevantly provide:

30AA Limitation on power to grant bail

Notwithstanding anything in this Act, if:

(a) ...;

(b) an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal is pending in the High Court in relation to an appeal referred to paragraph (a) [an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal],

bail shall not be granted by the Court of Criminal Appeal or any other court unless it is established that special or exceptional circumstances exist justifying the grant of bail.”

2 Each applicant has been granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against an earlier decision of this Court dismissing his appeal against conviction on a single count of demanding money with menaces, allegedly committed between March and June 2001. Each applicant now seeks, pursuant to s30AA, a grant of bail pending the determination of his appeal. Each accepts, as he must, that in order to obtain a grant of bail, he must establish that special or exceptional circumstances exist justifying such a grant.

3 During the course of the hearing of the applications an issue arose as to whether it was necessary for this Court constituted by three judges to deal with the applications or whether it would be possible for the applications to be dealt with by a single judge of the court. During the course of that argument and because it had not been anticipated, counsel who appeared for the Crown sought an adjournment in order to consider the position. The court considered that, bearing in mind the circumstances of the applicants’ custody, it would be better to proceed with the determination of the applications by the court as presently…

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 R v Antoun

Details

AGLC: R v Antoun [2005] NSWCCA 270
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 270
Decision Date: 1 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Antoun, the applicant, Antoun, sought bail pending the determination of an appeal to the High Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the applicant's eligibility for bail while awaiting the outcome of an appeal against his conviction and sentence for a serious criminal offence. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which has the ultimate authority to determine the grant of bail in cases where an appeal is pending before it.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the applicant met the criteria for bail as outlined in the common law and relevant statutory provisions, and if the interests of justice required that the applicant be granted bail. The court also needed to consider the nature and severity of the offence for which the applicant was convicted, the risk of flight, the risk of reoffending, and the impact of any potential delay in the appeal process on the applicant and the victims.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, including the applicant's personal circumstances, the likelihood of the appeal being successful, and the potential consequences of granting or refusing bail. The court concluded that the applicant did not meet the necessary criteria for bail, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the risk of reoffending. The court further found that the interests of justice did not require the applicant to be granted bail, and therefore, the application was dismissed. No further orders were made by the court.

Orders