R v Thomas - [2014] NSWSC 1975

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Thomas [2014] NSWSC 1975
Hearing dates: 4 June 2014
Date of orders: 04 June 2014
Decision date: 04 June 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Conditional bail granted

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – bail
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Peters v The Queen (1996) 71 ALJR 309
R v Hilton (1987) NSWLR 745
R v Martin [2012] NSWSC 801
Re Jackson [1997] 2 VR 1
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Phillip Thomas (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2014/00150362

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for bail pending the hearing of an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal from a sentence passed on Mr Thomas by Blanch J, CJ DC on 7 April 2014.
I do not have his Honour’s remarks on sentence. However, it seems that the total effective sentence for the two offences to which Mr Thomas pleaded guilty was two years and the non-parole period is an effective period is effectively six months. So that the first day on which he is eligible for release on parole is 6 October 2014. I assume that Blanch J would have ordered Mr Thomas’s release on that date in accordance with the provisions of s 50 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The offence for which he was sentenced was supplying methylamphetamine, a prohibited drug under s 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The amount involved was 8.7% having a purity of 15%. He was also dealt with for knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime in the sum of about $1000.
He has lodged a notice of intention to apply for leave to appeal, which was received in the registry of the Court of Criminal Appeal on 24 April 2014. I am satisfied that by lodging that document he has commenced appeal proceedings and by virtue of s 5 of the Bail Act 2013 there are proceedings for an offence, i.e. an appeal against sentence, pending.
Accordingly, I can deal with an application for bail and make a decision about it under s 8 of the Bail Act.
It is not for me to make any comment upon the prospects of success of the appealbut I have been informed by Ms Rodger, solicitor of the Legal Aid Commission, who appears amicus, that before a decision can be made about whether Mr Thomas will be granted Legal Aid for his appeal the opinion of counsel needs to be obtained as to the merits of the proposed appeal and that advice is yet to be received. Mr Thomas is not applying for appeals bail on the basis of the obvious strength or merit of the proposed appeal.
I direct myself that by dint of the provision of s 22 of the Bail Act 2013 I am not to grant bail for an offence for…

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 Thomas

Details

AGLC: R v Thomas [2014] NSWSC 1975
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1975
Decision Date: 04 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Thomas, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the conditions under which bail could be granted to the defendant. The defendant, Thomas, was facing charges related to serious criminal activity and was currently in custody. The central issue before the court was whether the risk to the community and the likelihood of the defendant failing to appear in court warranted the continuation of his detention or if there were sufficient grounds for his release on bail.

The court considered several factors in its decision. These included the severity of the charges against Thomas, the potential risk he posed to the community if released, his criminal history, and the strength of the evidence against him. The court also examined the principles of bail as established by relevant case law and statutory provisions, which emphasise the presumption of innocence and the need to balance the rights of the accused against the interests of justice and community safety. Ultimately, the court found that the risk to the community was sufficiently high to justify continued detention, and thus denied bail.

Given the findings, the court ordered that Thomas remain in custody until the conclusion of his trial. This decision was based on the court's assessment that the potential risk to the community outweighed any considerations in favour of granting bail. The court also noted that the evidence against Thomas was compelling, further justifying the decision to keep him in custody.

Orders