Ribot-Cabrera v The Queen

The case involved five defendants, all Chilean nationals, who were charged with offences under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 for allegedly fishing without a licence in the Australian Fishing Zone, which falls within Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone. The defendants applied for bail pending their trial, and the court was required to consider whether the risk of flight was such that bail should be refused. The defendants argued that the provisions of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea should be taken into account in the bail application, as the Fisheries Management Act was partly based on the treaty.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Bail Act 1982 and the Fisheries Management Act, as well as the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea. The court found that the defendants' status as foreign nationals and the nature of the charges were relevant factors in considering the risk of flight. The court also found that the treaty provisions did not have a direct bearing on the bail application, as the Fisheries Management Act was an independent piece of legislation that implemented the treaty obligations. The court ultimately found that the risk of flight was such that bail should be refused for four of the defendants, but the fifth defendant's bail was varied to allow him to return to Chile pending his trial.

The appeals by the first to fourth appellants were dismissed, as the court found that the primary judge's assessment of the risk of flight was correct. The appeal by the fifth appellant was allowed, and his bail was varied to allow him to return to Chile pending his trial. The court found that the primary judge had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the appellant had complied with all conditions of his previous bail, and that there was no evidence to suggest that he would not appear for trial if granted bail.

In summary, the court found that the risk of flight was such that bail should be refused for four of the defendants, but the fifth defendant's bail was varied to allow him to return to Chile pending his trial. The court found that the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea did not have a direct bearing on the bail application, as the Fisheries Management Act was an independent piece of legislation that implemented the treaty obligations. The appeals by the first to fourth appellants were dismissed, and the appeal by the fifth appellant was allowed with his bail varied as stated.