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."
How a Court Determines Whether to Grant Bail
The primary purposes of bail are to ensure that the accused attends proceedings for the offence which they have been charged and to protect the community and victims. Therefore the concept of ‘unacceptable risk’ is an important one when discussing bail. The Court must consider whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if granted bail will:-
- Fail to appear at any proceedings for the offence.
- Commit a serious offence,
- Endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community; and/or
- Interfere with witnesses or evidence.
Prior to amendments to the Bail Act that came in force on 28 January 2015, a bail authority, in most cases, a Court, would be required to first consider whether or not there are any unacceptable risks in granting bail. If so, then the question is if there are any conditions that could be imposed to mitigate the risk. If the answer to that is no, then bail should be refused. Otherwise, bail could be granted either conditionally or unconditionally.
These considerations have now been amended. The Court is now required to consider:
- If there are any bail concerns; and
- If so, whether there are conditions that may mitigate the concerns.
The consideration of these two factors will then determine whether or not there is an unacceptable risk.
Step One – Bail Concerns
Bail concerns are set out at section 18 of the Bail Act. The Court must consider only the following matters:
- Background, criminal history, circumstances and community ties of the applicant;
- Nature and seriousness of the offence;
- Strength of the prosecution case;
- Any history of violence;
- If the applicant has previously committed a serious offence on bail;
- If there is a history of compliance or non-compliance with bail acknowledgements, conditions, AVOs, parole orders or good behaviour bonds;
- Any criminal associations;
- Length of time the applicant is likely to spend in custody if bail refused;
- Likelihood of a custodial sentence if convicted;
- If the applicant has been convicted of the offence and the current proceedings are an appeal, and whether the appeal has reasonably arguable prospects of success;
- Any special vulnerability of needs the accused has, including youth, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage, or a cognitive or mental health impairment;
- Need to be free to prepare for appearance in court or obtain legal advice;
- Need to be free for any other lawful reason;
- Conduct towards any victim of the offence, or family member of a victim after the offence;
- In a serious offence: views of victim or family members of victims if relevant to a concern that the accused would endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community;
There are a number of considerations in determining whether an offence is a ‘serious offence’ for the purposes of this section:
- Whether or not the offence is a sexual or violent one, or involves the possession or use of an offensive weapon or instrument;
- The likely effect of the offence on any victim and on the community generally;
- The number of offences likely to be committed or for which the person has been granted bail or released on parole.
- Any other factors that the Court may consider relevant.
Step Two – Conditions that Mitigate
If there are concerns in relation to bail that arise from the factors outlined above, then the Court must consider whether there are conditions that could be imposed that would sufficiently mitigate those concerns. Please refer to our page on bail conditions the court can impose for further information.
Section 20A, bail conditions are only to be imposed if the Court is satisfied that those conditions are:-
- Reasonably necessary to address a concern;
- Reasonable and proportionate to the offence;
- Appropriate to the concern;
- No more onerous than necessary;
- Reasonably practical to comply with; and
- There are reasonable grounds for the Court to believe that that condition is likely to be complied with.
Determining Unacceptable Risk
The combination of these two steps will allow the Court to determine whether or not there is an unacceptable risk in granting bail, the court will then take action based on that consideration.
- If there are no bail concerns, bail should be granted unconditionally.
- If there are concerns, but these can be reasonably mitigated by bail conditions, bail must be granted conditionally.
- If the Court has determined there are bail concerns and no bail conditions could reasonably be imposed to address the concerns, then there is an unacceptable risk and bail should be denied.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
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
231 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
1 Farrell Place
Canberra ACT 2601
111 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000