R v Baker

In the matter of R v Baker, the applicant sought bail pending an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The applicant had been convicted by a jury of providing a benefit to a witness in judicial proceedings, under section 244(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). He was sentenced by Judge Vanstone to two years and three months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year, and the sentence was not suspended. The applicant now sought bail pending the hearing of the appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was entitled to bail following conviction, and if so, what the appropriate conditions for bail should be. The court had to consider the applicant's age, health, good character, prior good record, and general antecedents, as well as the prospect of success of the appeal.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, including section 10(2) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA), which grants the court an unfettered discretion to decide whether to release an applicant on bail following conviction. The court noted that there was no presumption in favour or against bail being granted, as had been established in previous cases. The court had to weigh the various factors before it, including the applicant's age, health, and good character, as well as the prospect of success of the appeal. The court also had to consider the public interest and the need to ensure that the applicant would be present for the appeal hearing. The court concluded that the applicant had established appropriate grounds for the exercise of discretion in his favour, and that there should be a grant of bail.

The court granted the applicant bail pending the hearing of the appeal. The court had regard to the cumulative effect of the particular circumstances of the case, including the applicant's age, health, good character, prior good record, and general antecedents. The court also noted that there was some prospect of the appeal succeeding, and that the applicant was not a bail risk. The court noted that the Director of Public Prosecutions had conceded that there should be a grant of leave on certain grounds. The court did not express any view on the strength or weaknesses of the grounds of appeal. The court will hear counsel as to the conditions of bail.