8all 1uLorlal CuesLlon 2

Crlmlnal racLlce and rocedure 1

1 | a g e

lL ls AugusL 10
Lh
and Lhe flrsL appearance ln Lhe maLLer conslder Lhe sLaLemenLs of !ameson and
8alLlmore and Lhe lnsLrucLlons of Moss 8eason and Wade and be prepared Lo make 8all appllcaLlon on
Lhe laLer Lhree men's behalf

1 Cond|t|ons under wh|ch ba|| can be offered to an |nd|v|dua|
8a|| Lhls ls Lhe condlLlonal release of a person charged or release elLher for a crlme or a maLLer before
Lhe courL
1here are some general prlnclples as lL relaLes Lo ball
1 1here ls a general enLlLlemenL Lo ball
s 3(1) 8a|| Act 2000
#Sub[ect to the prov|s|on of th|s Act every person who |s charged w|th an offence sha|| be ent|t|ed
to be granted ba|| by a court a Iust|ce of the eace or a po||ce off|cer as the case may requ|re"

s 3(2) #A person who |s charged w|th an offence sha|| not be he|d |n custody for |onger than
twentyfour hours w|thout the quest|on of ba|| be|ng cons|dered#

s 3 (3) #Sub[ect to sect|on 4 (4) ba|| sha|| be granted to a defendant who |s charged w|th an
offence wh|ch |s not pun|shab|e w|th |mpr|sonment#

App||cat|on to Iact attern
Messer Wade kearon and Moss have a|| been charged w|th the offence |arceny pursuant to sect|on S
of the Larceny Act
Mr Wade has been charged w|th the offence of Smok|ng Gan[a pursuant to sect|on 7D (a) and (b) of
the Dangerous Drugs Act
Mr kearon |s charged w|th Smok|ng Gan[a pursuant to sect|on 7D (d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act
8ased on the respect|ve statutes the noted offences attract a per|od of |mpr|sonment
1) Smok|ng Gan[a s 7D of the Dangerous Drugs Act attracts upon conv|ct|on a f|ne of I|ve nundred
Do||ars (5S00) or |mpr|sonment of 12 months or both
2) Larceny s S of the Larceny Act attracts upon conv|ct|on a per|od of |mpr|sonment not exceed|ng
f|ve years
As such s3 (3) of the 8a|| Act w||| not be app||cab|e |n th|s matter
When exam|ne the nature of each app||cat|on the tr|buna| as to app|y the proper test |n eva|uat|ng
whether Messer Wade kearon and Moss w||| appear for the|r tr|a|
8all 1uLorlal CuesLlon 2
Crlmlnal racLlce and rocedure 1
2 | a g e

1he prosecuLlon ls qulck Lo polnL ouL LhaL based on Lhe rullng ln k v kose
Iacts 1he accused was lndlcLed for larceny Lo whlch he enLered a plea of #noL gullLy# Cn hls appllcaLlon
for ball lL was he|d LhaL #Lhe courL was noL Lo wlLhhold ball as a form of punlshmenL as Lhe purpose of
ball ls Lo secure Lhe aLLendance of Lhe accused aL Lrlal
We could argue LhaL lf ball ls wlLhheld lL could go as far as vlolaLlng on Lhe face of lL Lhe presumpLlon of
lnnocence seL ouL ln ConsLlLuLlon
s20 (3) #Whenever any person is charged with a criminal
oIIence he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be aIIorded
a Iair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial court established by law,
Lord 8lngham or Cornhlll polnLed Lo Lhls presumpLlon ln Lhe case
nurnam v State
Iacts AppellanL was a lawyer of 30 years and was charged on 2 counLs of consplracy he was arresLed
lmmedlaLely he applled for ball and maglsLraLe granLed same buL sLayed Lhe order under dlrecLlon of
Lhe u (8all AcL of MaurlLlus) 1he appllcaLlon for ball was reslsLed before Lhe Senlor ulsLrlcL MaglsLraLe
on Lhree grounds
Pouse of Lord 8uled LhaL ball should noL be used as a punlshmenL
Powever Lhe courL ln k v kose noLed LhaL aL common law ball may sLlll be refused on grounds such as
wheLher Lhere ls a llkellhood LhaL Lhe accused ls llkely Lo reoffend whlle on ball or Lo abscond

We note to the court wh||e |n cons|der|ng the ba|| app||cat|ons for these three men that the
prosecut|on |s ob[ect|ng the app||cat|ons of Messer Wade and Moss and no ob[ect|on to the
app||cat|on of Mr kearon but that ba|| be granted under str|ct cond|t|ons prov|ded for under
s 3 (b) 8all AcL
S 6 8all AcL
(2) (a)8all wlLh sureLy (2)(b) a paymenL of such amounL as may be speclfled
(3) (d) Lo comply wlLh such oLher requlremenLs as appear Lo Lhe courL Lo be necessary Lo ensure
LhaL LhaL person
1 Surrenders Lo cusLody
2 uoesn'L commlL anoLher offence whlle on ball
8all 1uLorlal CuesLlon 2
Crlmlnal racLlce and rocedure 1
3 | a g e

3 uoesn'L noL lnLerfere wlLh wlLnesses or oLherwlse obsLrucL Lhe course of [usLlce
wheLher ln relaLlon Lo hlmself or any oLher person


2 App||cat|on for Mr kearon NC C8ILC1ICN

8efore Lhe courL ls
Name Mr 8lcardo 8earon
Address unknown address
Cccupat|on unknown by Lhe pollce
Issues Pe was found wlLh gan[a ln hls possesslon (half smoked #spllff#)

1he lnvesLlgaLlng offlcers are noL fully aware of hls lnvolvemenL ln Lhe maLLer as yeL

ueLalnlng hlm on Lhe offence of smoklng gan[a whlch on Lhe face of lL ls easlly made ouL
would noL be an approprlaLe balanclng Lhe publlc lnLeresL and LhaL of hls llberLy

rosecuLlon ls recommendlng as noLed abouL sLrlcL condlLlons lf Lhe courL flnds favour ln
granLlng hlm 8all

Cond|t|ons a reporL Lo Lhe pollce Lhree Llmes weekly b curfew order c resLrlcLed
from Lhe yard and Lhe communlLy (Lx arte Sharky)


3 App||cat|on for Mr Wade C8ILC1ICN

8efore Lhe courL ls
Name 8llly Wade
Address 4 8ramble Lane SL Andrew
Cccupat|on CareLaker
Issues Pe was found aL Lhe locaLlon where Lhe sLolen lLems were found and gan[a was belng
smoked on Lhe premlses

Pe was noL cooperaLlve wlLh Lhe pollce on Lhe day of Lhe search

ollce had Lo use reasonable force Lo geL compllance

Pe ls Lhe sole occupler of Lhe properLy where Lhe |tems were reLrleved

8all 1uLorlal CuesLlon 2
Crlmlnal racLlce and rocedure 1
4 | a g e

Pe ls Lhe careLaker of Lhe properLy lL ls reasonable Lo lnfer LhaL he under some form of
employmenL Lo Mr Moss
1he rosecuLlon ls noL clear as Lo Lhe leave of lnvolvemenL ln Lhe alleged crlme

Mr Wade could be a coconsplraLor wlLh Mr Moss
Pe could have acLed ln Lhe removal process of Lhe lLems from Lhe MlnlsLry
Pe could be acLlng as an agenL for Mr Moss ln Lhe posslble Lhe selllng and
dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe lCuS
1he llkellhood of lnLerference of Lhe premlses and lLs aLLachmenLs by Mr Wade lf
granLed cusLody appears greaL
1he llkellhood of Mr Wade lnLerferlng wlLh wlLnesses and Lhe course of Lhe
lnvesLlgaLlon appears greaL
ConsLable 8alLlmore lndlcaLed ln hls sLaLemenL LhaL he enqulred of Mr Wade abouL an
area of Lhe easL fence on Lhe properLy whlch was noL manlcured 1he quesLlonlng by Lhe
Cfflcer appeared Lo have resulLed from hls susplclon LhaL Lhere may be foul play aL
hand
8ased on Lhe rullng ln
k v Governor of Canterbury r|son
Iacts AppllcanL who was charged wlLh rape aLLempLed murder and aggravaLed burglary appeared
before Lhe [usLlces and was subsequenLly remanded
ne|d 1he sLandard of proof requlred for Lhe courL Lo be saLlsfled of maLLers whlch were a precondlLlon
for Lhe courL's exerclse of lLs dlscreLlonls on Lhe balance of probablllLles

1he courL noLed ln
ke Mo|es
Iacts 1he appllcanL was arresLed and charged wlLh offences of causlng grlevous bodlly harm wlLh
lnLenL an appllcaLlon for a remand ln cusLody was made on Lhe ground LhaL Lhere was llkely Lo be
lnLerference wlLh wlLnesses 1he !usLlces held LhaL Lhere were subsLanLlal grounds for so bellevlng AL an
appllcaLlon for a furLher remand ln cusLody appllcanL's counsel applled for ball he noLed Lhere had
been a change of clrcumsLances
1he !usLlces refused Lo hear Lhe appllcaLlon appllcanL was furLher remanded as such an appllcaLlon for
Pabeas Corpus was made

8all 1uLorlal CuesLlon 2
Crlmlnal racLlce and rocedure 1
S | a g e

ne|d
1) Lhe sLrlcL rules of evldence were lnherenLly lnapproprlaLe ln a courL concerned Lo declde wheLher
Lhere were subsLanLlal grounds for bellevlng someLhlng
2) When conslderlng an opposed appllcaLlon for ball Lhe !usLlces were bound Lo lnvesLlgaLe an alleged
change of clrcumsLances buL where Lhey erred by refuslng so Lo do Lhelr subsequenL order was noL
rendered vold alLhough a courL wlLh approprlaLe [urlsdlcLlon could lnLerfere Lo seL lL aslde


4 App||cat|on for Mr Moss C8ILC1ICN

8efore Lhe courL ls
Name Mr Lrrol Moss
Cccupat|on ermanenL SecreLary MlnlsLry of CulLure
Address unknown
Issues Items were found at h|s prem|ses that matches those wh|ch have gone m|ss|ng from
the M|n|stry of Cu|ture

Cne of the ICDS was found on h|s persona| ass|stant as they made the|r way to board
a f||ght

Mr Moss ls a fllghL rlsk Pe was caughL aL Lhe AlrporL by Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng offlcer

Pe was noL cooperaLlve wlLh Lhe lnvesLlgaLlve process

Pls level of lnfluence whlle noL cerLaln appears wlde and greaL wlLhln governmenL
clrcles

Pow he could have moved (wheLher dlrecLly or lndlrecLly) 20 boxes of governmenL
properLy from Lhe mlnlsLry doesn'L appear Lo be a solo operaLlon

1he properLy where Lhe lLems where locaLed belong Lo hlm (1lLle lndlcaLe same)

1he rlsk of Mr Moss lnLerferlng wlLh Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon ls greaL
lnfluence or connecLlon ln Lhe mlnlsLry ls unknown
may have access or means of communlcaLlon Lo have relaLed documenLaLlons
removed or desLroyed wlLhln Lhe mlnlsLry




8all 1uLorlal CuesLlon 2
Crlmlnal racLlce and rocedure 1
| a g e

1he case of
Lx arte Sharky
Iacts SLrlklng mlners plckeLed colllerles n afLer a dlspuLe beLween Lhe naLlonal Coal 8oard and Lhe
naLlonal unlon of Mlneworkers 1he nlne (9) appllcanLs were plckeLlng and were subsequenLly arresLed
and charged wlLh LhreaLenlng behavlor and obsLrucLlng a pollce offlcer ln Lhe execuLlon of hls duLy
1hey were granLed condlLlonal ball and were resLrlcLed from areas where Lhere were plckeLlng or
demonsLraLlng connecLed Lo Lhe currenL dlspuLe 1hey applled for [udlclal revlew and orders of cerLlorarl
Lo quash Lhe order and granL uncondlLlonal ball
ne|d dlsmlssed Lhe appllcaLlons Lhe courL ln refuslng Lo granL ball had Lo have subsLanLlal grounds for
bellevlng an offence would be commlLLed lf Lhe ball were granLed 1he test for |mpos|ng a cond|t|on on
the grant of ba|| was whether the court perce|ved a rea| r|sk of a further offence be|ng comm|tted
1he !usLlces were enLlLled Lo use Lhelr own knowledge of Lhe slLuaLlon where Lhe plckeLlng Lo prevenL
mlnors from worklng was by lnLlmldaLlon and LhreaLs and Lhe presence of a large number of plckeLs ln
Lhose clrcumsLances Lhe lndlvldual clrcumsLances and good characLer of each of Lhe appllcanL was
lrrelevanL once Lhe !usLlces were saLlsfled LhaL Lhe lmposlLlon of Lhe condlLlon Lo granL ball was
necessary Lo prevenL each lndlvldual appllcanL from [olnlng Lhe plckeLs and commlLLlng offences agalnsL
publlc order whlle on ball
Accordlng Lo Lord Lane CI et a|
1he quest|on the Iust|ces shou|d ask themse|ves |s a s|mp|e one
"|s th|s cond|t|on necessary for the prevent|on of the comm|ss|on of an offence by the defendants
when on ba||?"
1hey are not ob||ged to have substant|a| grounds |t |s enough |f they perce|ve a rea| and not a fanc|fu|
r|sk of an offence be|ng comm|tted
Lord 8lngham ln nurman v State
Pe noLed
1) 8lsk of Abscondlng
2) 8lsk of lnLerference
3) Crlme revenLlon
4) reservlng publlc order
3) necesslLy of deLenLlon Lo proLecL Lhe defendanL


8all 1uLorlal CuesLlon 2
Crlmlnal racLlce and rocedure 1
7 | a g e

Iust|ce Sykes took these factors |nto cons|derat|on and noted |n
Stephens v D
Iacts Lhe accused was on a charge of larceny of caLLle ln Lhe parlsh of SL LllzabeLh Powever he also
had a prevlous charge of recelvlng sLolen properLy pendlng ln Lhe parlsh of Clarendon for whlch he was
already on ball
Iust|ce Sykes lnLlmaLed LhaL ln conslderlng wheLher or noL Lo granL ball Lhe courL should
1) 8egln wlLh Lhe consLlLuLlonal norm of llberLy ln favour of granLlng ball
2) Conslder wheLher Lhere are grounds Lo refuse ball
3) Ask wheLher Lhere are subsLanLlal rlsk
4) lL here are can condlLlons adequaLely manage Lhe rlsk?
Lxam|n|ng the po|nts made by Iust|ce Sykes
We are of Lhe vlew LhaL Mr Moss should noL be afforded ball aL Lhls Llme as Lhere are no condlLlons LhaL
are avallable Lo Lhe Lrlbunal adequaLe Lo manage Lhe rlsk of hlm noL Lurnlng up for hls Lrlal
1he prosecuLlon may noL aL Lhls flrsL hearlng be fully apprlsed of all Lhe facLs Lo Lhe charge lald by Lhe
pollce buL LhaL ls noL sufflclenL for Lhe courL noL Lo rule ln our favour
Accordlng Lo Lhe case
keg v Nott|ngham II Lxp Dav|es
Iacts AppllcanL who had been granLed ball was charged wlLh oLher offences alleged Lo have been
commlLLed whlle on ball Pe was rearresLed and pendlng Lrlal was remanded ln cusLody Pe applled for
ball ln Lwo consecuLlve weeks and was denled 1hls poslLlon was a based on Lhe pollcy whlch Lhe 8ench
of !usLlces for Lhe area adopLed LhaL afLer a second appllcaLlon for ball Lhey would noL conslder on
subsequenL appllcaLlons maLLers prevlously before Lhe courL unless Lhere had been a change ln Lhe
clrcumsLances
An appllcaLlon for a mandamus dlrecLed Lo Lhe [usLlces requlrlng Lhem Lo hear Lhe full facLs supporLlng
and deLermlnlng Lhe appllcaLlon for ball
ne|d 8efuslng Lhe appllcaLlon alLhough Lhe courL had a duLy Lo conslder granLlng ball on every
appllcaLlon!usLlces conslderlng a renewed appllcaLlon for ball had no duLy Lo reconslder maLLers
prevlously consldered
1he oplnlon of Dona|dson LI |s of |mport
"Lookinq ot the po/icy direction of the benchbosed on experience it shows thot on the occosion of the
first opp/icotion the fu// focts ore not usuo//y ovoi/ob/e to the duty so/icitor ond so to the court
4ccordinq on the second opp/icotion it is o/most o/woys possib/e for on opp/icont for boi/ or his
odvocote to submit correct/y thot there ore motters to be considered by the court which were not
8all 1uLorlal CuesLlon 2
Crlmlnal racLlce and rocedure 1
| a g e

considered on the first occosion where this is the experience of ony porticu/or bench of justices the
Nottinqhom proctice is not on/y convenient but riqht"