Clarke v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] FCA 1498

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Clarke v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] FCA 1498 CRIMINAL LAW – bail – application for leave to appeal from an order of a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory refusing to grant the applicant bail – applicant awaiting sentence following conviction of the offences of armed robbery and assault occasioning actual harm – whether trial judge properly considered the question of bail – whether, having regard to the matters referred to in s 22 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), bail would and should be refused on proper consideration Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1A) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 101 Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 3(2)(a), 8(2)(a), 9, 22

Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] FCA 921, applied R v Hilton (1987) 7 NSWLR 745, applied PETER SURYA CLARKE v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS A 76 OF 1999 GALLOP, HIGGINS and GYLES JJ CANBERRA 2 NOVEMBER 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY A 76 OF 1999

BETWEEN: PETER SURYA CLARKE

Applicant

AND: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Respondent

JUDGES: GALLOP, HIGGINS and GYLES JJ

DATE: 2 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE: CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT: 1 Peter Surya Clarke ("the applicant") sought leave to appeal from an order of a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory made on 10 September 1999, refusing to grant him bail. Each party was content to argue the matter on the basis that leave was required because an order refusing bail is interlocutory within the meaning of s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The issue was noticed but not authoritatively determined in Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] FCA 921. There is no need for this Court to resolve the issue. The Court granted leave and heard the appeal instanter. The appeal was dismissed, with reasons to be delivered later. These are those reasons.