TIELEMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 164
| Link to Appeal : |
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 164 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:112/2004 | 27 JULY 2004 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH J | 3/08/04 | |
| 46 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Applications refused | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WALTER JOHN TIELEMAN THE QUEEN SEAN PEARCE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Bail Application for bail pending appeal Exceptional reasons why applicants should not be held in custody Prospects of success on appeal Anticipated delay before hearing and judgment Financial and other effects of applicants' incarceration on family, business and other persons |
Legislation: | Bail Act 1982 (WA), cl 4, Pt C, Sch |
Case References: | Avis v The Queen [2002] WASCA 45 Bernt v The Queen (1994) 70 A Crim R 1 Caratti v The Queen [1999] WASCA 91 Chamberlain (No 1) v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 514 Clark v The Queen [2004] WASCA 91 Davis v The Queen (1990) 50 A Crim R 55 Draper v The Queen [2000] WASCA 160 Ewer v Ambrose (1825) 3 B & C 746; 107 ER 910 Kabadanis v Panagiotou (1980) 30 ALR 374 Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) (1976) 50 ALJR 666 Marotta v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 265 Mullally v The Queen [2000] WASCA 26 Naylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960147; 20 March 1996 Parsons v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1325 Peters v The Queen (1998) 151 ALR 51 R v Iannelli (2003) 139 A Crim R 1 R v Kastratovic (1985) 19 A Crim R 28 R v Kennedy (2000) 118 A Crim R 34 R v M [1980] NSWLR 195 R v MRW (1999) 113 A Crim R 308 R v Welden (1977) 16 SASR 421 Robinson v The Queen (1991) 65 ALJR 519 Russell v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930741; 23 December 1993 Stalker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 364 Toomath v The Queen [1999] WASCA 213 United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 183 ALR 645 Wills v Petroulias (2003) 204 ALR 162 Wilson v The Queen (1994) 73 A Crim R 532 Duke v The Queen [1999] WASCA 215 Ex parte Maher [1986] 1 Qd R 303 In re Cooper's Application for Bail [1961] ALR 584 Macleod v The Queen (2003) 197 ALR 333 Peters v The Queen (1996) 71 ALJR 309 R v Smith, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; 18 May 1993 R v Southgate [1960] NSWR 477 R v Waters (1990) 9 Petty Sessions Review 4016 R v Wood [1974] VR 117 Willers v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 950284; 7 June 1995 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : TIELEMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 164 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 27 JULY 2004 DELIVERED : 3 AUGUST 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 112 of 2004
Continue reading Tieleman v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Tieleman v The Queen [2004] WASCA 164
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 164
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Tieleman v The Queen was heard by the High Court. The respondent was the Crown, and the applicant was Tieleman, who was seeking bail pending appeal against a conviction and sentence. The dispute centred on whether Tieleman should be granted bail while his appeal was being heard, given the exceptional circumstances that he argued justified his release from custody. The High Court was tasked with determining whether there were sufficient grounds to justify Tieleman's release on bail during the pendency of his appeal.
The legal issues before the Court were whether Tieleman's application for bail met the criteria for being granted exceptional circumstances. This involved assessing the prospects of success on appeal, the anticipated delay before the hearing and judgment of the appeal, and the financial and other effects of Tieleman's incarceration on his family, business, and other persons. The Court had to weigh these factors against the need to ensure the administration of justice and the public interest in Tieleman remaining in custody pending the outcome of his appeal.
The Court found that Tieleman had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting his release on bail. The Court considered that the prospects of success on appeal were not strong, and the anticipated delay before the hearing and judgment of the appeal did not justify his release. The Court also found that while the effects of Tieleman's incarceration on his family, business, and other persons were significant, they did not outweigh the need to ensure the administration of justice and the public interest in Tieleman remaining in custody. Therefore, the Court refused Tieleman's application for bail pending appeal.
The legal issues before the Court were whether Tieleman's application for bail met the criteria for being granted exceptional circumstances. This involved assessing the prospects of success on appeal, the anticipated delay before the hearing and judgment of the appeal, and the financial and other effects of Tieleman's incarceration on his family, business, and other persons. The Court had to weigh these factors against the need to ensure the administration of justice and the public interest in Tieleman remaining in custody pending the outcome of his appeal.
The Court found that Tieleman had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting his release on bail. The Court considered that the prospects of success on appeal were not strong, and the anticipated delay before the hearing and judgment of the appeal did not justify his release. The Court also found that while the effects of Tieleman's incarceration on his family, business, and other persons were significant, they did not outweigh the need to ensure the administration of justice and the public interest in Tieleman remaining in custody. Therefore, the Court refused Tieleman's application for bail pending appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Applications 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.