R v Williams [2018] NSWSC 994

R v Williams [2018] NSWSC 994

Because the respondent relied only on the strength of proposed appeal grounds, he had to show that the appeal was most likely to succeed. The inconsistent verdict ground had poor prospects because the acquittal on count 1 was explicable by evidentiary differences from counts 2 and 3. The unreasonable verdict ground was no more than arguable; there was evidence supporting the guilty verdicts and the bail judge did not have the full trial record. The respondent therefore failed to establish special or exceptional circumstances, so the detention application was granted and bail revoked.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Detention Application / Crown Detention Application After Conviction and Release on Bail, With a Notice of Intention to Appeal Against Convictions Lodged
Outcome
The detention application was granted; bail was revoked; the respondent was remanded in custody.
Legal Topics
['bail Pending Appeal' 'detention Application' 'special or Exceptional Circumstances' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts']
['criminal Law' 'bail'] ['bail Pending Appeal' 'detention Application' 'special or Exceptional Circumstances' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts']

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 Detention Application / Crown Detention Application After Conviction and Release on Bail, With a Notice of Intention to Appeal Against Convictions Lodged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent established special or exceptional circumstances under s 22 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) justifying bail pending appeal.' 'Whether proposed grounds alleging inconsistent verdicts were most likely to succeed.' 'Whether proposed grounds alleging unreasonable verdicts were most likely to succeed.' "Whether the Crown's detention application should be granted and bail revoked."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent relied only on the strength of proposed appeal grounds, he had to show that the appeal was most likely to succeed. The inconsistent verdict ground had poor prospects because the acquittal on count 1 was explicable by evidentiary differences from counts 2 and 3. The unreasonable verdict ground was no more than arguable; there was evidence supporting the guilty verdicts and the bail judge did not have the full trial record. The respondent therefore failed to establish special or exceptional circumstances, so the detention application was granted and bail revoked.

Court Disposition

The detention application was granted; bail was revoked; the respondent was remanded in custody.

Orders

  • ['The detention application is granted.' 'I revoke the bail granted by Judge Pickering SC on 23 March 2018.' 'The respondent is remanded in custody.']