R v Lyons - [2018] NSWSC 223

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lyons [2018] NSWSC 223
Hearing dates: 22 February 2018
Date of orders: 22 February 2018
Decision date: 22 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Conditional bail granted.

Catchwords: BAIL - applicant convicted and sentenced in Local Court - 24 offences of using position to dishonestly gain an advantage or cause a detriment and using position dishonestly to recklessly gain an advantage contrary to the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) - sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months with an order to be released on recognisance after nine months - all grounds appeal to District Court - appeal bail refused - application for bail in Supreme Court - relevant factors on bail application - likely delay before appeal heard - conditional bail allowed
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Crimes Act 2014 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Tyler v R (1995) 80 A Crim R 371
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Selena Lyons (Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms H Sewell, Solicitor (Crown)
Ms P Beaumont, Solicitor (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Crown)
Pearl Beaumont, Solicitor (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2018/52120
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

This is an application for bail by Selena Lyons, who is to appear at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 13 March 2018 with respect to an appeal she has brought from convictions and sentence for certain offences in the Local Court.
The Applicant was charged with 27 offences of using her position to dishonestly gain an advantage or cause detriment contrary to s.265.25(3)(a) Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) and one offence of using her position dishonestly to recklessly gain an advantage or cause detriment contrary to s.265.25(3)(b) of that Act.
The matters proceeded to a defended hearing before Magistrate Erin Kennedy in the Wagga Wagga Local Court. The hearing proceeded over nine sitting days, between 3 April 2017 and 27 October 2017. After the evidence and addresses, her Honour reserved her decision with respect to verdict.
On 22 November 2017, her Honour found 24 of the 28 alleged offences proven. A presentence report was ordered and the matter was stood over for sentence and ultimately came before her Honour on 12 February 2018. On that day, her Honour imposed a global penalty and sentenced the Applicant to 15 months’ imprisonment, to be released after serving nine months upon the Applicant entering into a recognisance herself in the sum of $500.00 to be of good behaviour for six months pursuant to s.20(1)(b) Crimes Act 2014 (Cth). The Applicant was also ordered to pay reparation in the amount of $24,187.25.
On 12 February 2018, the then solicitor for the Applicant lodged an all grounds appeal to the District Court with respect to these matters. An application for bail proceeded before Magistrate Kennedy that day for the purpose of the appeal. Her…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Lyons and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWSC 223
Decision Date: 22 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the matter of R v Lyons involved the applicant, who had been convicted and sentenced in the Local Court on 24 offences under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth). The offences related to the applicant using their position to dishonestly gain an advantage or cause a detriment and using their position dishonestly to recklessly gain an advantage. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months, with an order to be released on recognisance after nine months. The applicant appealed all grounds to the District Court, but their bail appeal was refused. They subsequently applied for bail in the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant was likely to attend court for their appeal and whether the applicant should be granted bail, considering the relevant factors. The applicant argued that the appeal would likely be delayed, and they would be prejudiced if they remained in custody. The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, the risk of re-offending, the likelihood of the applicant attending court, and any prejudice to the applicant if bail were not granted.

The court held that the applicant's appeal would likely be delayed, and the applicant would suffer prejudice if they were not granted bail. The court was satisfied that the applicant was likely to attend court for their appeal and that there was no significant risk of re-offending if bail were granted. The court found that the interests of justice required the applicant to be granted bail. The court ordered that the applicant be released on conditional bail, with specific conditions to ensure the applicant would attend court for their appeal and not re-offend.

The court's final orders included the granting of conditional bail to the applicant, with conditions such as reporting to a bail justice weekly, not leaving the state of Queensland without the permission of the court, and refraining from contacting certain individuals. The applicant was also required to surrender their passport and provide a fixed address for the duration of the bail period.

Orders