Court of Appeal dismisses two appeals against decisions of the High Court to refuse bail, on the grounds that: (a) the evidence that was presented that both appellants were a flight risk and would not stand trial was cogent and compelling; (b) the fact that the alleged offences were in furtherance of the objectives of an organised crime group was a relevant consideration; (c) in assessing the risk of further offences, account must be taken of the fact that this was an alleged conspiracy to commit offences as part of and in furtherance of a feud that had already taken 15 lives and the conclusion reached by the trial judge, that if admitted to bail the appellants would not disengage from the conspiracy but would commit further offences in pursuance of it, was one that was open to him; and (d) the trial judge was entitled to take the view that the imposition of bail conditions could not address the situation.
Judgment heavily redacted - two appeals from order of High Court refusing bail - appellants are brothers - same bail hearing in High Court and much of the evidence common to the two appellants - appeals heard together on the papers - appellants charged with similar though not identical offences - one appellant charged with directing the activities of a criminal organisation in the State - both appellants charged with other offences including participating in activities intending to facilitate the commission of a serious offence by a criminal organisation and conspiracy to murder - High Court upheld DPP's objections to bail on one of the O'Callaghan grounds, i.e. that the appellants were a flight risk, and on the basis of s. 2 of the Bail Act 1997, i.e. a risk of further offences being committed - whether High Court erred in refusing bail.