Anastasia Qvist is an outstanding lawyer. My criminal law situation (family violence order) was difficult, complex and Ana's diligence saved me as I was going through the most difficult period of my life. Ana is down to earth, commonsense and she even kept our costs to a minimum. She is a skilled litigator and knows the ins and outs of the ACT Magistrates Court. She dealt skillfully with the DPP and is an excellent negotiator. You will get a fair representation and she genuinely cares about her clients. She has my complete recommendation. The lady goes to bat for her clients.
I would strongly recommend Anastasia to anyone who is seeking legal representation. As a first-time offender who was charged with a Level 2 Drink Driving offence, she walked me through every step of the matter and was very upfront and clear on all aspects of my case. She was always accessible when I needed advice. Her approach and advice were excellent. Under her representation, I received the best possible outcome and managed to avoid a criminal conviction. She was a pleasure to deal with throughout the whole matter.
Anastasia Qvist was very professional and helpful in every step of my matter. I got a very good outcome and I can’t thank you enough for your hard work and the Armstrong Legal team in Canberra. I would highly recommend her!!!
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
Will I Get Bail?
Whether you are likely to be granted bail depends largely upon the seriousness of the offence you have been charged with and your criminal history The Bail Act grades offences and offenders into different categories. The category you are placed in will affect your chances of getting bail.
The ACT’s bail laws are complex. If you require legal advice please call Armstrong Legal.
Bail and Minor Offences
You have the right to be released on bail if:
- You were charged with an offence not punishable by imprisonment (except in default of payment of a fine).
- You were charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment for not longer than 6 months.
- You were arrested for a breach of the peace or apprehended breach of the peace.
- You were arrested under a warrant because of failure to comply with a summons or subpoena.
- You were brought up to attend a trial or hearing following the issue of a habeas corpus order.
However, you do not have this right if:
- You have failed to appear at court.
- You have previously failed to comply with a bail undertaking or bail condition imposed in respect of the offence.
- You are incapacitated by intoxication, injury or use of a drug, or are otherwise in danger of physical injury or in need of physical protection.
- You stand convicted of the offence and your conviction for the offence has been stayed.
- You are in custody serving a sentence in connection with some other offence and are likely to remain in custody for a longer period than that for which bail in connection with the new offence would be granted.
Presumption in Favour of Bail
Where there is a presumption in favour of bail, it is expected that bail will be granted, unless you have been convicted of the offence by a court or the court is satisfied that certain criteria under the Bail Act 2002 justify refusing to grant bail.
The presumption in favour of bail applies to all offences except the specific circumstances outlined below. It also applies where a person has not been entitled to the right to release on bail for a minor matter merely because they have previously failed to comply with a bail undertaking imposed in respect of that offence, or because they have failed to appear in court in respect of a minor matter.
No Presumption in favour of bail
The presumption in favour of bail does not apply where:
- The right to release or presumption against bail applies.
- You have been accused of treason (Criminal Code Act 1995(Cth), Section 80.1).
- You have been convicted of an indictable offence but not sentenced.
- You have been accused of any of the following offences, and if you have in the previous 10 years been found guilty of an offence involving violence or the threat of violence:
|Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)||30 (threat to kill), 31 (threat to inflict grievous bodily harm) and 35 (stalking)|
|Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) (ACT)||90 (contravene protection order)|
- You have been accused of any of the following offences:
|Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)||15, 19, 49C, 49D, 51, 52, 54 and 55(1) – including manslaughter and sexual offences.|
|Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)||310, 312, 603(3), 603(5), 603(7), 607(3), 607(5), 610(1), 610(3), 611(1), 611(3), 611(5), 611(7), 612(1), 612(3), 616(3), 619(3), 622(3), 624(4), 625(1), 639 – including robbery, burglary and certain serious drug offences.|
|Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT)||164|
|Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (ACT)||26, 33|
|Customs Act 1901 (Cth)||231(1), 233AC, 233B|
Presumption Against Bail
Where you have been charged with one of the following offences, bail will ordinarily be refused and you must show “special or exceptional circumstances” to satisfy the court that bail should be granted. Even if such circumstances are shown, bail can still be refused on the usual bail criteria.
The presumption against bail applies to:
|Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)||12 (murder)|
|Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)||603(1), 607(1), 616(1), 619(1), 622(1) and 624(1) – serious drug offences.|
The presumption against bail applies also to:
- A person accused of a serious offence (that is, an offence punishable by five years’ imprisonment or more) and it is alleged that that offence was committed while the person had another serious-offence charge pending or outstanding (that is, being heard or about to be heard by a court).
- A person who has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to prison and has an appeal pending.
- A person accused of a domestic-violence offence. The authorised officer (usually the arresting police) must not grant bail unless satisfied that the person poses no threat to the alleged victim. Even if so satisfied, bail may still be refused on the usual criteria.
Special or Exceptional Circumstances
The Bail Act makes clear that a circumstance that would be an applicable (or usual) bail criterion is not a special or exceptional circumstance only because it is an applicable bail criterion.
The court or authorised officer must consider the applicable bail criteria for the person only after the court or authorised officer is satisfied of the existence of special or exceptional circumstances.
The Bail Act provides examples to show the high threshold of “special or exceptional circumstances”. They are:
- Damien is before court charged with aggravated robbery. He has earlier been charged with having committed aggravated robbery. Damien argues that there are special circumstances as he needs to support his child, he may lose his job and he may lose an opportunity to take up public housing. The court considers that the circumstances are not special or exceptional. Bail is not granted and the usual criteria are not considered.
- Jason is facing similar charges. Jason has had a car accident before his arrest for the second offence. His kidneys are damaged, requiring dialysis every 3 days. Jason argues that his need for regular treatment and his reduced mobility mean that he is highly unlikely to abscond. The court considers these circumstances are special or exceptional. The court then considers the usual criteria in deciding whether to grant bail.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
If you or someone you know has had bail refused twice, and has had a bail review conducted in the…
Section 22 of the Bail Act 1992 sets out what a court must consider when deciding a bail application made…
Courts are often more likely to grant bail if the risks associated with granting bail can be protected against (mitigated)…
WHERE TO NEXT?
If you suspect that you may be under investigation, or if you have been charged with an offence, it is vital to get competent legal advice as early as possible. Our lawyers are highly specialised in criminal law and will be able to guide you through the process while dealing with the various authorities related to your matter.
WHY CHOOSE ARMSTRONG LEGAL?
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
111 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000