Re Chetcuti - [2017] QSC 196

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Chetcuti [2017] QSC 196

PARTIES:

JAMIE VALANTINE CHETCUTI

(applicant)

v
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QLD)

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 8444 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

24 August 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 August 2017

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – AFTER CONVICTION – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted after a trial of two counts of common assault – where the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment with a parole release date set after serving three months imprisonment – where the applicant applied for bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence – whether there are strong grounds for concluding that the appeal will be allowed – whether the sentence imposed is likely to have been substantially served before the appeal is determined – whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances

Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 8(1), s 8(5)

Ettridge v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)[2003] QCA 410, cited
Ex parte Maher [1986] 1 Qd R 303, cited
Hanson v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)[2003] QCA 409, cited
R v Fuller[2008] QCA 303, cited
R v Martens (No 1) [2010] 1 Qd R 564; [2009] QCA 139, cited
R v Ogawa[2009] QCA 201, followed

United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 183 ALR 645; [2001] HCA 60, cited

COUNSEL:

S McLennan for the applicant

V J Adams (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for bail pending an appeal which has been brought on behalf of Jamie Valantine Chetcuti. On 10 August 2017, Mr Chetcuti was convicted after a trial in the District Court at Mackay of two counts of common assault and was sentenced to six months imprisonment with a parole release date set after serving three months imprisonment.

It was settled as long ago as the decision of the Full Court in Ex parte Maher [1986] 1 Qd R 303 that, whilst s 8(1) and s 8(5) of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) confers jurisdiction on the court to grant bail to convicted offenders wishing to appeal their conviction or sentence, or both, the respect for a jury’s verdict which underlines our system of criminal justice requires that a regularly obtained conviction should not be seen as a mere step in the process of appeal. As such, the release on bail of an appellant sentenced to a reasonably long term of imprisonment (or even shorter terms of imprisonment) should only occur in exceptional circumstances.

That the favourable exercise of the discretion to admit a person to bail pending appeal will ordinarily require the demonstration of exceptional circumstances is well established: see United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 183 ALR 645 at 656; Ettridge v Director of…

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 Re Chetcuti

Details

AGLC: Re Chetcuti [2017] QSC 196
Case: [2017] QSC 196
Decision Date: 24 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant was convicted by the County Court of two counts of common assault and was sentenced to six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three months. Following the conviction and sentence, the applicant lodged an application for bail pending an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The primary judge considered whether there were strong grounds for concluding that the appeal would be allowed, whether the sentence imposed was likely to have been substantially served before the appeal was determined, and whether the applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances.

The primary judge examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The court assessed the strength of the appeal prospects, taking into account the trial judge's findings, the applicable legal principles, and the weight of the evidence. The court also considered the likely duration of the appeal process and the extent to which the applicant had already served the sentence. The judge noted the absence of exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the usual principles governing bail applications.

After evaluating the relevant factors, the primary judge found that there were no strong grounds for concluding that the appeal would be allowed. Additionally, the court determined that the applicant had not served a substantial portion of the sentence, and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated. Consequently, the application for bail pending appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Re Chetcuti [2017] QSC 196
PARTIES:	JAMIE VALANTINE CHETCUTI (applicant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QLD) (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 8444 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	24 August 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 August 2017
JUDGE:	Burns J
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – BAIL – AFTER CONVICTION – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted after a trial of two counts of common assault – where the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment with a parole release date set after serving three months imprisonment – where the applicant applied for bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence – whether there are strong grounds for concluding that the appeal will be allowed – whether the sentence imposed is likely to have been substantially served before the appeal is determined – whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 8(1), s 8(5) Ettridge v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)[2003] QCA 410, cited Ex parte Maher [1986] 1 Qd R 303, cited Hanson v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)[2003] QCA 409, cited R v Fuller[2008] QCA 303, cited R v Martens (No 1) [2010] 1 Qd R 564; [2009] QCA 139, cited R v Ogawa[2009] QCA 201, followed United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 183 ALR 645; [2001] HCA 60, cited
COUNSEL:	S McLennan for the applicant V J Adams (sol) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent