SBT v Wright (No 2) - [2022] ACTSC 97

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	SBT v Wright (No 2)
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 97
Hearing Date(s):	5 April 2022
DecisionDate:	5 April 2022
Before:	McCallum CJ
Decision:	Bail refused.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – Application for bail pending appeal – Bail refused – Whether there are special or exceptional circumstances favouring the grant of bail
Legislation Cited:	Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Bail Act 1992 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	SBT v Wright [2021] ACTSC 322 Samani v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 48
Parties:	SBT (Applicant) Wright (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Applicant) K McCann (Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Applicant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	AC 3 of 2022

McCALLUM CJ:

The applicant, SBT, was sentenced in the Magistrates Court for a series of offences, the most serious of which were an offence of failing to stop a motor vehicle for police, contrary to s 5C of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) and an offence of driving a stolen motor vehicle, contrary to s 3182 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

For those offences, he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 11 months of which the two offences I have just mentioned account each for nine months to be served concurrently. As some of the offences were committed when the applicant was a child, it was not possible for the court to consider imposing an Intensive Corrections Order. Further, because the sentence was less than 12 months, no non-parole order was set: see s 65 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). Finally, no portion of the sentence was suspended.

The applicant appealed to this Court and was represented at the appeal. The appeal was heard by Mossop J on 3 November 2021 and his Honour dismissed the appeal for the reasons published in a judgment dated 21 December 2021: SBT v Wright [2021] ACTSC 322. The applicant now seeks bail pending an appeal against the judgment of Mossop J.

As the application is brought by a person who has been convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment, s 9E of the Bail Act1992 (ACT) applies. That section provides that the Court must not grant bail unless satisfied that special or exceptional circumstances exist favouring the grant of bail.

The Crown has very fairly drawn attention to the likelihood that, had the applicant been represented on the present appeal, it would have been argued on his behalf that a stay of his sentence and a grant of bail are necessary to preserve the subject matter of the pending appeal. His sentence is currently due to expire on 31 May 2022 and the Court will, in all likelihood, not be able to hear the appeal before that date.

The Crown drew my attention in that context to the decision of Refshauge AJ in Samani v The Queen [2016] ACTCA…

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 SBT v Wright (No 2)

Details

AGLC: SBT v Wright (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 97
Case: [2022] ACTSC 97
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In SBT v Wright (No 2), the applicant, SBT, appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to refuse his application for bail pending an appeal against a conviction and sentence. The applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of several offences, the most serious of which were failing to stop a motor vehicle for police and driving a stolen motor vehicle. He was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 11 months of imprisonment. The applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by Mossop J, who found no obvious error in the judgment of the Magistrates Court. The applicant then sought bail pending an appeal against the decision of Mossop J. The Crown opposed the application on the basis that there were no special or exceptional circumstances favouring the grant of bail.

The legal issue before the court was whether there were special or exceptional circumstances favouring the grant of bail. The court considered the provisions of s 9E of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), which provides that the court must not grant bail to a person who has been convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment unless satisfied that special or exceptional circumstances exist favouring the grant of bail. The court considered the proposed grounds of appeal and found no obvious error in the judgment of Mossop J. The court also considered the applicant’s argument that he was concerned that if he were released without any supervision orders at the end of his sentence, he would be less able to remain out of contact with the criminal justice system than if he were released on bail with some form of intensive supervision. However, the court found that in light of the view it had reached as to the force of the reasons in Mossop J’s judgment, it must refuse the application for bail.

The court’s reasoning was that there were no special or exceptional circumstances favouring the grant of bail. The court considered the proposed grounds of appeal and found no obvious error in the judgment of Mossop J. The court also considered the applicant’s argument that he was concerned that if he were released without any supervision orders at the end of his sentence, he would be less able to remain out of contact with the criminal justice system than if he were released on bail with some form of intensive supervision. However, the court found that in light of the view it had reached as to the force of the reasons in Mossop J’s judgment, it must refuse the application for bail. The court found that the applicant had not established that there were special or exceptional circumstances favouring the grant of bail.

The court refused the application for bail. The applicant was not granted bail pending an appeal against the decision of Mossop J.

Orders