Re Egglestone - [2014] VSC 666

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0201

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail
by TARA EGGLESTONE

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 December 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 December 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Egglestone
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 666

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Application for bail following conviction – Application for bail after appeal from Magistrates’ Court to County Court heard and determined – Application for bail pending hearing of application for judicial review – Judicial review application out of time.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms R Nida	–
For the Crown	Mr MD Thompson	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 30 July 2014, the applicant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and was sentenced in respect of 26 driving-related offences. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four months as part of an aggregate sentence in respect of a number of these charges and convicted and fined a total of $600 in respect of the remaining offences. The applicant then appealed to the County Court against the sentence imposed in the Magistrates’ Court. On 9 September 2014, the applicant was again convicted of all offences and was again given an aggregate sentence of four months’ imprisonment and fined $600.

The offending for which the applicant was sentenced occurred between May 2011 and February 2014. Ten of the offences were for driving whilst disqualified or driving while authorisation was suspended, and four of the offences were for failing to answer bail. Further, the applicant, who was 24 years of age at the time of sentencing, did not fall to be sentenced as a first offender.

Since being sentenced in the County Court, the applicant has been in custody serving the term of imprisonment imposed upon her. She is due for release in early January 2015 (some two to three weeks from today).

On 5 December 2014, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court. The applicant having exhausted her rights of appeal, there was, at that time, no basis for the application for bail.

However, on 11 December 2014, the applicant commenced judicial review proceedings under O 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, seeking an order quashing the convictions and sentences imposed on the applicant in the County Court on 9 September 2014.[1] Insofar as the applicant seeks to quash her convictions (or any of them), it should be noted that the applicant pleaded guilty to all charges in the Magistrates’ Court, and the appeal in the County Court was only an appeal against sentence. In the circumstances it seems hard to conceive how the applicant might succeed in having any of her convictions set aside in the judicial review proceeding.
[1] S CI 2014 06598.

In rolled-up grounds, said to support the relief the applicant seeks in the judicial review…

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 Egglestone

Details

AGLC: Re Egglestone [2014] VSC 666
Case: [2014] VSC 666
Decision Date: 22 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Egglestone involved the appellant, Mr Egglestone, and the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions. The dispute centred around an application for bail following Mr Egglestone's conviction in the County Court. Mr Egglestone had previously been convicted in the Magistrates’ Court and had appealed to the County Court, where his appeal was dismissed. Following this, he applied for bail pending the hearing of an application for judicial review, which was out of time. The court had to determine whether Mr Egglestone was entitled to bail pending the judicial review.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was eligible for bail pending the judicial review application, given that the application itself was out of time. The court needed to balance the appellant's right to seek judicial review against the potential risk he posed to the community if released on bail. The court also had to consider the principles of fairness and the appellant's right to a timely judicial review.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the eligibility for bail. It noted that the appellant had not acted promptly in lodging his application for judicial review. The court held that the appellant's application for bail was contingent upon the timeliness of the judicial review application, and since the latter was out of time, it undermined the former. The court ultimately found that the appellant was not entitled to bail pending the judicial review. The reasoning was based on the principle that the appellant's delay in applying for judicial review reflected poorly on his entitlement to bail.

The court dismissed the application for bail. The appellant was not granted bail pending the judicial review application due to the untimeliness of the application itself. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in both bail and judicial review applications.

Orders