R v Williams

The case before the court involved a criminal defendant, Williams, who had been convicted by a jury. The Crown subsequently applied for Williams' detention while his appeal against the conviction was being heard. The primary issue before the court was whether Williams should be released on bail pending the outcome of his appeal. The appeal grounds raised by Williams included the assertion that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable. The court had to determine the appropriate test for assessing the likelihood of success of these grounds of appeal and the implications for bail pending appeal.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases, particularly the need to balance the right to liberty of the accused against the public interest in preventing flight and ensuring the fair administration of justice. The court emphasised that the test for bail pending appeal is whether the grounds of appeal are arguable, not whether they are likely to succeed. However, the court also noted the particular difficulties that arise when an unreasonable verdict is alleged, as this can impact the assessment of the likelihood of success on appeal. The court concluded that in such cases, the respondent must establish that the grounds of appeal are arguable, but this alone may not be sufficient to warrant bail.

In this case, the court found that Williams had established that the grounds of appeal were arguable, but the Crown had shown that there were substantial grounds to believe that the appeal would be successful. The court accepted that the alleged unreasonableness of the verdict was a significant factor in favour of detention. Consequently, the court granted the Crown's application for Williams to be detained pending the outcome of his appeal. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that the administration of justice is not prejudiced by the release of an appellant on bail when there are substantial grounds to believe that the appeal will succeed.