R v Marcus [2016] NSWCCA 237

R v Marcus [2016] NSWCCA 237

The respondent did not satisfy the show cause requirement because, having regard to the seriousness of the alleged offending, the likely delay was not excessive or unusual, no principle of restraint applied, and the identification evidence was strong enough for bail purposes. In any event, release would create an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence, endangering the community and interfering with the complainant, and bail conditions would not appropriately ameliorate that risk.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Detention Application Pursuant to S 50 of the Bail Act 2013 / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing After the Supreme Court Granted Conditional Bail on 13 October 2016
Outcome
Bail refused.
Legal Topics
['detention Application' 'show Cause Requirement' 'unacceptable Risk' 'attempted Murder' 'firearm Offence' 'criminal Group Offending']
['criminal Law' 'bail'] ['detention Application' 'show Cause Requirement' 'unacceptable Risk' 'attempted Murder' 'firearm Offence' 'criminal Group Offending']

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

Detention Application Pursuant to S 50 of the Bail Act 2013 / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing After the Supreme Court Granted Conditional Bail on 13 October 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent satisfied the show cause requirement under the Bail Act 2013.' 'Whether a principle of restraint applied because conditional bail had been granted by a single judge of the Supreme Court.' 'Whether likely delay before trial justified release on bail.' 'Whether the Crown case, including identification evidence, was weak.' 'Whether release would create an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence, endangering safety, or interfering with witnesses or evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not satisfy the show cause requirement because, having regard to the seriousness of the alleged offending, the likely delay was not excessive or unusual, no principle of restraint applied, and the identification evidence was strong enough for bail purposes. In any event, release would create an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence, endangering the community and interfering with the complainant, and bail conditions would not appropriately ameliorate that risk.

Court Disposition

Bail refused.

Orders

  • ['The grant of conditional bail on 13 October 2016 by Harrison J was revoked.' 'The detention order sought by the Crown was made.' 'The respondent is to remain in custody until further order of a court.']