Legal Research
Cases
Trevascus v The Queen

Trevascus v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 323 9 December 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trevascus v R [2020] NSWCCA 323
Hearing dates: 2 December 2020
Date of orders: 2 December 2020
Decision date: 09 December 2020
Before: McCallum JA at [1]
Johnson J at [3]
R A Hulme J at [58]
Decision:
The Applicant’s release application is dismissed.

Catchwords:
BAIL – release application – application for bail for purposes of appeal against conviction and sentence to be heard by Court of Criminal Appeal – applicant convicted of offences of robbery in company and attempted take and drive vehicle in circumstances of aggravation (being in company) – special or exceptional circumstances test – assessment of strength of grounds of appeal – consideration of factors relevant to bail – release application dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Jury Act 1977

Cases Cited:
Darwiche v R; El-Zeyat v R; Aouad v R; Osman v R (2018) 209 A Crim R 424; [2011] NSWCCA 62
El Khouli v R [2019] NSWCCA 146
El-Hilli and Melville v R [2015] NSWCCA 146
HT v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2019] NSWCCA 141
Lee v R; Tang v R [2015] NSWCCA 157
Macaree v State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 207
Petroulias v R [2010] NSWCCA 95
R v Bourke [2003] QCA 113
R v Burns (2009) 103 SASR 514; [2009] SASC 105
R v Dunn (2006) 94 SASR 177; [2006] SASC 58
R v Muir [2009] SASC 94
R v Petroff (1980) 2 A Crim R 101
R v Thompson (2008) 21 VR 135; [2008] VSCA 144
R v Trevascus [2020] NSWDC 90

Texts Cited:
---

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ryan Trevascus (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr IS McLachlan (Applicant)
Ms M Millward (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Aquila Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/322837
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

McCALLUM JA: I joined in the orders of the Court because I agreed that, in light of the applicant’s history of addiction to illicit substances, the bail proposal did not adequately address the risk of committing a serious offence if released. I would not have granted bail to the applicant without a proposal for residential drug rehabilitation.
It is accordingly not necessary to record my opinion as to the prospects of appeal save to say that, while I do not share Johnson J’s bleak assessment particularly as to ground (a), I do not disagree with the conclusion that exceptional circumstances have not been shown. I agree with Johnson J and the additional remarks of R A Hulme J as to ground (b).
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Ryan Trevascus, applied for bail for the purposes of an appeal against conviction and sentence to be heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 28 April 2021.
The Applicant’s release application was heard by this Court on 2 December 2020. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court made an order dismissing the release application with reasons…

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 Trevascus v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Trevascus v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 323
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 323
Decision Date: 09 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Trevascus, sought bail pending the outcome of an appeal against his conviction and sentence. Trevascus was found guilty of offences of robbery in company and attempted take and drive of a vehicle in circumstances of aggravation, and he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. He applied for bail to the court, seeking release pending the hearing of his appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central legal issue for the court was whether there were special or exceptional circumstances that warranted the release of Trevascus on bail. The court needed to assess the strength of the grounds of appeal and consider the relevant factors in determining whether bail should be granted.

In addressing the application, the court examined the grounds of appeal and found them to lack significant merit. The court considered the strength of the appeal to be weak, which was a critical factor in the decision-making process. Additionally, the court assessed other relevant factors, such as the nature and severity of the offences, the risk of re-offending, and the potential impact on the community if bail were granted. The court concluded that the public interest in maintaining the safety and security of the community outweighed the applicant's right to liberty pending appeal. As a result, the court dismissed the application for bail.

The court's reasoning and ultimate decision were grounded in a careful analysis of the evidence and legal principles applicable to bail applications in such circumstances. The court determined that there were no special or exceptional circumstances that would justify granting bail, and therefore, Trevascus's application was dismissed.

Orders