Wiest, E.A v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] FCA 476

Wiest, E.A v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] FCA 476

Although the foreshadowed appeal was not frivolous and the matter was finely balanced, the applicant had not shown exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify bail after review and pending appeal; applying Hempel v. Moore, bail was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Bail Pending Appeal / After Judgment by a Single Judge; Foreshadowed Appeal Pending
Outcome
Bail refused; applicant ordered to be delivered forthwith to the Sheriff of the Court; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['bail Pending Appeal' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'custody Pending Appeal']
['criminal Procedure'] ['bail Pending Appeal' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'custody Pending Appeal']

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

Application for Bail Pending Appeal / After Judgment by a Single Judge; Foreshadowed Appeal Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether bail should be granted pending appeal after review by the Court had been unsuccessful.' "Whether the applicant's circumstances were exceptional so as to justify bail."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the foreshadowed appeal was not frivolous and the matter was finely balanced, the applicant had not shown exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify bail after review and pending appeal; applying Hempel v. Moore, bail was refused.

Court Disposition

Bail refused; applicant ordered to be delivered forthwith to the Sheriff of the Court; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be delivered forthwith to the Sheriff of this Court.' 'Bail be refused.' 'The costs be reserved.']