R v Tasker (No 2)

In this case, the respondent, Tasker, applied for bail pending appeal against conviction. The matter came before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the merits of the application in light of the respondent's entry of a guilty plea. The central issue before the court was whether the entry of a guilty plea could impact the assessment of a bail application, particularly when the Crown case was considered strong.

The court noted that the entry of a guilty plea did not necessarily preclude a successful bail application, but it was a factor to be weighed in the overall assessment. The court emphasised that the standard for bail applications, particularly in cases where the Crown case was strong, was a high one. It was necessary for the applicant to show a compelling reason why bail should be granted. The court found that the respondent had not met this burden, primarily because the Crown case was strong, and the potential sentence was significant. This, combined with the respondent's history of breaching bail conditions, led the court to conclude that the respondent had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for bail.

Consequently, the Full Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the primary judge's decision to refuse bail. The court held that the strong Crown case, coupled with the respondent's history of breaching bail conditions, outweighed any arguments in favour of granting bail. The court's decision underscored the importance of the strength of the prosecution case in bail applications, particularly when a guilty plea has been entered.