Valerio v The State of Western Australia
[2018] WASCA 4
•9 JANUARY 2018
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.
0