RCW v The Queen

Case [2014] NSWCCA 169

Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: RCW v R [2014] NSWCCA 169
Hearing dates:28 July 2014
Decision date: 28 July 2014
Before: Bathurst CJ; Adams J; R A Hulme J
Decision:

Bail granted

Catchwords: BAIL - grant of bail where appeal against sentence is pending in Court of Criminal Appeal - special or exceptional circumstances exist - no unacceptable risk - unconditional bail granted
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: RCW (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Dhanji SC (Applicant)
Mr L Crowley (Crown)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission NSW
File Number(s):2012/271407

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: This is a bail release application pursuant to the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) (the Act).

  1. The applicant is before the Court having sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court on 10 October 2013. For an offence of aiding and abetting an attempt to import commercial quantities of border controlled drugs he was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years. The sentence was backdated to 14 July 2013 so as to take into account a period of presentence custody.

  1. Section 17 of the Act requires a consideration of whether there is any unacceptable risk of the applicant failing to appear; committing a serious offence; endangering the safety of victims, individuals or the community; or interfering with witnesses or evidence.

  1. The applicant is aged 57. Prior to his arrest he had never been held in full-time custody; indeed, he has no relevant previous convictions. He was arrested on 19 January 2012. He entered a plea of guilty in the Local Court and was committed to the District Court for sentence on 11 December 2012. He spent 2 months and 27 days in custody when bail was refused but for the vast majority of the time he was awaiting sentence he was on bail. There is no suggestion of any failure to comply with the requirements of his bail.

  1. In these circumstances, there are no unacceptable risks.

  1. Where an appeal is pending in this Court against sentence, s 22 of the Act requires that bail is not to be granted (or dispensed with) unless it is established that special or exceptional circumstances exist. There are such circumstances in this case: having considered extensive written and oral submissions by both parties, the Court indicated earlier today upon reserving its judgment that leave to appeal would be granted; the appeal would be allowed; and the applicant would be re-sentenced in terms that would not require him to serve any further period in mandatory custody.

  1. Finally, it is noted that the Crown did not oppose unconditional bail being granted.

Order

  1. Bail is granted unconditionally.

  1. The applicant is to be released upon signing an acknowledgement that he is to appear before the Court on a date to be fixed.

**********

Details
AGLC
RCW v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 169
Case
[2014] NSWCCA 169
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of RCW v The Queen involved an appellant who had been convicted and sentenced for an offence. The appellant sought bail pending an appeal against the sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary legal issue for the court was whether the appellant should be granted bail, given that an appeal against the sentence was pending, and if so, whether the conditions for bail should be conditional or unconditional. The court was tasked with determining if the special or exceptional circumstances existed that warranted the granting of bail, and whether there was an unacceptable risk to the community if bail were granted.

The court examined the principles governing the grant of bail in such circumstances. It considered the nature of the offence, the severity of the sentence, the appellant's criminal history, and the prospects of success of the appeal. The court also assessed whether the appellant posed an unacceptable risk to the community, and whether there were any other factors that would support the granting of bail. In this instance, the court found that the appellant met the criteria for bail under the relevant legislation, as the special or exceptional circumstances were present, and there was no unacceptable risk to the community. Consequently, the court granted unconditional bail to the appellant.

The reasoning and decision of the court were based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal framework. The court held that the appellant's right to a fair trial and the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty were paramount. Given the findings, the court concluded that the appellant should be released on bail pending the outcome of the appeal. The court's decision was grounded in the balance between the appellant's rights and the interests of the community, leading to the grant of unconditional bail. The final orders reflected the court's decision, allowing the appellant to be released on bail while the appeal process continued.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.