R v Incandela (No 3)

The case of R v Incandela (No 3) was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Salvatore Incandela was convicted of a sexual offence and the Crown sought to revoke his bail. The Court was required to determine whether the mandatory considerations in s 22 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) are altered by the fact of a conviction and whether it should grant or refuse bail to the offender. The Court considered the arguments of both the Crown and the offender before making its decision.

The central legal issue was whether the mandatory considerations in s 22 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) are altered by the fact of conviction and, if so, how that fact should be taken into account in the assessment of the risk of flight and the strength of the evidence against the offender. The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law, and considered the particular circumstances of the offender in deciding whether to grant or refuse bail. The Court concluded that the fact of conviction does alter the balance of the considerations in s 22 of the Bail Act and that it should take into account the increased risk of flight and the strength of the evidence in deciding whether to grant or refuse bail.

The Court found that the fact of conviction alters the balance of the considerations in s 22 of the Bail Act and that it should take into account the increased risk of flight and the strength of the evidence in deciding whether to grant or refuse bail. The Court considered the offender's particular circumstances, including his lengthy period on bail, his employment and residential arrangements, and his prior criminal history. The Court found that there was some risk of flight and that the offender did not have a particular need to be at liberty for the period between conviction and sentencing. The Court therefore concluded that bail should be revoked and that the offender should be taken into custody.

The Court revoked the offender's bail and ordered that he be taken into custody. The offender has the right to appeal the decision of the Court to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory.