R v Mark William Standen [2010] NSWSC 1157

R v Mark William Standen [2010] NSWSC 1157

The applicant did not satisfy the very high onus applicable under s 8A. No attempt was made to show that the Crown case was not strong; the charges were extremely serious and carried very substantial penalties; the applicant would have a strong incentive to abscond and had not shown that he lacked the capacity to arrange flight; and the proposed bail conditions could not convert the Noraville house into a gaol or prevent access to means of communication. Although delay, onerous custody conditions, mental health concerns and trial preparation needs were accepted to varying degrees, they did not outweigh the strength of the Crown case and flight risk.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Application / Supreme Court Application for Bail After a Previous Bail Application Had Been Refused
Outcome
Bail refused on all charges.
Legal Topics
['presumption Against Bail' 'conspiracy to Import a Border Controlled Precursor' 'conspiracy to Supply a Prohibited Drug' 'conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'risk of Absconding' 'delay Before Trial' 'conditions of Custody' 'mental Health in Custody']
['criminal Law' 'bail' 'drug Offences'] ['presumption Against Bail' 'conspiracy to Import a Border Controlled Precursor' 'conspiracy to Supply a Prohibited Drug' 'conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'risk of Absconding' 'delay Before Trial' 'conditions of Custody' 'mental Health in Custody']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Bail Application / Supreme Court Application for Bail After a Previous Bail Application Had Been Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether changed circumstances permitted the court to entertain a further bail application under s 22A(1) of the Bail Act.' 'Whether the applicant satisfied the onus under s 8A of the Bail Act that bail should not be refused for the relevant offences.' 'Whether the strength of the Crown case, seriousness of the charges and risk of absconding outweighed matters relied on by the applicant including delay, onerous custody conditions, mental health, trial preparation and proposed bail conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not satisfy the very high onus applicable under s 8A. No attempt was made to show that the Crown case was not strong; the charges were extremely serious and carried very substantial penalties; the applicant would have a strong incentive to abscond and had not shown that he lacked the capacity to arrange flight; and the proposed bail conditions could not convert the Noraville house into a gaol or prevent access to means of communication. Although delay, onerous custody conditions, mental health concerns and trial preparation needs were accepted to varying degrees, they did not outweigh the strength of the Crown case and flight risk.

Court Disposition

Bail refused on all charges.

Orders

  • ['Bail is refused on all charges.']