STEPHENS -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 22

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 22
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:190/2003	Heard:	18 FEBRUARY 2004
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	18/02/04
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TERRY NORMAN STEPHENS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Bail Application for bail pending appeal Previous application for bail refused Whether new facts or changed circumstances Whether exceptional reasons
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), Sch 1, Pt C, cl 4, s 22
Case References:	Nil Davis v The Queen [2002] WASCA 298 Stalker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 364 Trivett & Ors v Jeffrey [2003] WASCA 151

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : STEPHENS -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 22 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 18 FEBRUARY 2004 DELIVERED : 18 FEBRUARY 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 190 of 2003 BETWEEN : TERRY NORMAN STEPHENS

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Bail - Application for bail pending appeal - Previous application for bail refused - Whether new facts or changed circumstances - Whether exceptional reasons

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), Sch 1, Pt C, cl 4, s 22

Result:

Application refused

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr C G Astill

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Davis v The Queen [2002] WASCA 298
Stalker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 364
Trivett & Ors v Jeffrey [2003] WASCA 151

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: In the course of my dealing with the Court of Criminal Appeal motions list this morning and the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant made an application for bail pending appeal.

2 There is before me in support of that application a document headed Affidavit but merely signed by the applicant and dated 17 February 2004. He explains to me that it was not possible for him to have the document sworn before a justice of the peace because of a lock-down in the prison.

3 Under the circumstances it seemed to me appropriate to receive the document for the purposes of dealing with his application and I did so (see Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 22).

4 The grounds of the application really come down to these: first, that the applicant's wife and daughter are suffering a particular and extreme hardship as a consequence of his imprisonment; secondly, that he is in a position to obtain employment should he be released to assist his family to recover financial stability, and thirdly they do have a place to live, as evidenced by a home tenancy agreement for the next 12 months in respect of premises in Kennedy Street, Morley.

5 He has submitted letters from the Australian Taxation…

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 Stephens v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stephens v The Queen [2004] WASCA 22
Case: [2004] WASCA 22
Decision Date: 18 FEBRUARY 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stephens applied for bail pending the determination of an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The nature of the dispute involved whether there were new facts or changed circumstances warranting a reconsideration of the bail decision, or if there were exceptional reasons to grant bail. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues centred on whether the applicant had presented new facts or circumstances that had not been previously considered by the court when it denied bail. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there were exceptional reasons that justified granting bail pending the appeal. The court examined the seriousness of the offence, the risk of flight, the impact of the appeal on the applicant, and the interests of the community.

The court found that the applicant had not presented any new facts or changed circumstances since the previous refusal of bail. Furthermore, the court did not find any exceptional reasons to grant bail. The gravity of the offence, the risk of flight, and the interests of the community weighed against granting bail. The court also noted that the appeal did not provide a reasonable prospect of success that would justify altering the balance of considerations.

Consequently, the court refused the application for bail pending the determination of the appeal. The application was dismissed, and the orders were made accordingly.

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.