The High Court has refused to order the release of an anonymised man who was remanded in custody after being convicted of sexual offences involving his young granddaughter.
Mr A had remained on bail throughout a four-day jury trial. After the jury returned guilty verdicts, prosecution counsel told the trial judge there was no objection to bail continuing pending sentence. The trial judge responded that there would be no bail.
Defence counsel then told the court that the granddaughter also did not object to continuing bail and began making submissions. According to the judgment, the trial judge interrupted and again stated that there would be no bail. Mr A was remanded in custody until 8 February, when the case was due to return for sentence.
Mr A brought an Article 40 habeas corpus application. His case was not simply that bail had been refused. He argued that he had been denied a proper opportunity to make his case before that decision was taken, contrary to the fair-hearing principle that each party should be heard before a decision is reached.
Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the trial judge had jurisdiction to decide whether bail should continue. The remand order also showed no invalidity on its face.
The High Court accepted that defence counsel could have been afforded a more complete hearing. However, it found that this did not amount to the kind of fundamental denial of justice or fundamental flaw required to invalidate post-conviction detention through an Article 40 application.
The judge noted that the trial judge had heard the four-day criminal trial and had briefly heard defence counsel before making the remand decision. He also stressed that, following conviction, Mr A could not rely on a presumptive right to bail.
The application was therefore refused. The High Court did not reconsider the convictions or decide what sentence should ultimately be imposed.