Valerio v The State of Western Australia

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: VALERIO -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2018] WASCA 4

CORAM: MAZZA JA

HEARD: 12 DECEMBER 2017

DELIVERED : 12 DECEMBER 2017

PUBLISHED : 9 JANUARY 2018

FILE NO/S: CACR 107 of 2017

BETWEEN: SALVATORE VALERIO
Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :GOETZE DCJ
File No  :IND 1663 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Application for bail pending appeal - Exceptional circumstances

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), cl 4A pt C sch 1

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr B Murray

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Valerio v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 167

MAZZA JA: Before me is Mr Valerio's application filed on 1 December 2017 for bail pending his appeal against conviction. Alternatively the appellant seeks an urgent appeal order. The application for bail pending appeal is brought pursuant to cl 4A pt C sch 1 of the Bail Act 1982 (WA).
The appellant is self‑represented. The appellant was convicted after trial in the District Court of one count of aggravated manufacture of a prohibited drug, namely DMT. He was sentenced to 3 years 4 months' immediate imprisonment with eligibility for parole. On 11 September 2017, this court refused leave to appeal against that sentence. See Valerio v The State of Western Australia.[1] I will call this decision Valerio No 1. The factual background to this case is for present purposes sufficiently set out in Valerio No 1 [3] ‑ [8].
[1] Valerio v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 167.
The appeal against conviction relies on three grounds. Ground 1 alleges that the trial judge erred in dismissing an application made in the trial that there was no case to answer. Ground 2 alleges that the verdict of guilty was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. Ground 3 alleges that additional evidence demonstrates that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
The law with respect to bail pending appeal is well‑settled and does not need to be repeated here. Bail can only be granted where exceptional circumstances are demonstrated and it is otherwise appropriate to do so. A grant of bail is generally inappropriate where the appellant fails to demonstrate that one or more of the grounds of appeal have a strong prospect of success.
I have considered the appellant's case, the respondent's answer and the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the appellant. I have also considered the written and oral submissions that have been made in relation to this application. It is inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings to give a detailed analysis of the proposed grounds.
It is sufficient to say that, at the moment, it has not been demonstrated that any of the proposed grounds have a strong prospect of success. This preliminary view may change after a full hearing of the appeal. The appellant has proffered other reasons why he should be granted bail, being that he has been in custody now for a long period of time and that he is a party in what I understand to be contentious family law proceedings. These matters are not, in my opinion, by themselves or in combination, sufficient to justify a grant of bail.
Exceptional reasons for a grant of bail pending appeal have not been demonstrated. Accordingly I have no jurisdiction to grant bail and the application must be dismissed, and I so order. As for the application for an urgent appeal, that matter will be dealt with on the papers by the President.

The case of Valerio v The State of Western Australia involved the applicant, Valerio, who sought bail pending an appeal against his conviction and sentence for various criminal offences. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which had to determine whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail. The State opposed the application, arguing that Valerio posed a significant risk to the community if released on bail.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting bail. The court considered factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offences, the risk of reoffending, the impact of imprisonment on the applicant, and the public interest in the administration of justice. The applicant's legal team argued that there were exceptional circumstances due to the applicant's deteriorating health and the prospect of significant delay in the appeal process. In contrast, the State emphasised the seriousness of the crimes and the risk posed to the community.

The court found that, while the applicant's health was a serious consideration, it did not, on its own, constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting bail. The court noted that the applicant's health issues could be managed in custody and did not outweigh the need to protect the community. Furthermore, the court was not satisfied that the delay in the appeal process was so significant as to justify bail. The court ultimately concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted the grant of bail. The application was therefore dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established