Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Challenge to the constitutionality of bail legislation fails
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses to declare legislation governing bail as unconstitutional in a case where evidence of a Chief Superintendent that a witness will be interfered with was given at a High Court bail hearing, on the grounds that the Chief Superintendent’s opinion evidence was treated by the trial judge in accordance with the statutory confines of the legislation, and the refusal of bail was not based wholly on the belief evidence but, rather, considered as part of weight of evidence against the applicant.
Bail – constitutional challenge to s. 2A of the Bail Act 1997 – evidence of Chief Superintendent that witness will be interfered with – whether s. 2A is unconstitutional because of the absence of any safeguards and whether it breaches the principles of egalité des armes – validity of opinion evidence – whether the refusal of bail was based wholly on the belief evidence of the Chief Superintendent – Kelly P. applied the test for bail as set out in s.2 (1) and (2) of the 1997 Act and that he did not indicate either expressly or impliedly (by the manner of his ruling) that he was compelled to conclude that refusal of bail was reasonably necessary because of the evidence offered by Chief Superintendent Sheahan – challenge to constitutionality of s.2 and s.2A of the 1997 Act fails.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
