CHEW V. THE QUEEN

CHEW

Vv. THE QUEEN sDUDGMENT TOOHEY J-

(ORAL)

nfie}9/

THE QUEEN

This is an application that the applicant be admitted to bail pending determination of his appeal

against conviction.

The applicant was granted special leave to appeal at the sittings of the Court in Perth on 22 October 1991. On 24 October his counsel appeared before McHugh J. and sought bail pending determination of the appeal. At that time it seemed likely that the appeal would be heard in Canberra on 10 December 1991. The attitude of the Crown was that if the appeal was not to be heard on 10 December it would not oppose a grant of bail because the applicant would have served the custodial part of his sentence before the appeal was

heard.

McHugh J. refused the application, saying that there was nothing to stop a fresh application being made after the appeal was heard on 10 December. This

was on the basis that it would then be clear whether a

decision on the appeal was likely before the non-parole

period had expired.

The applicant was sentenced to a term of three years imprisonment on each charge of which he was convicted, the sentences to be served concurrently. In respect of those sentences a non-parole period of twelve months applies. I put the matter in that somewhat vague way because I was not taken to the details of the statutory scheme applicable to those

sentences.

It is common ground however that, under the operation of the scheme, including provision for remissions, the earliest date on which the applicant may expect to be released on parole is 19 February 1992. The Crown accepted that, in the ordinary course of events, the applicant will be released on parole on that date. However the Crown now opposes the

application for bail.

As might be expected, the applicant puts his case essentially on the basis that, the Court having reserved its decision on his appeal, it is almost certain that he will have served the custodial part of