Champagne4lulu
Active Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 34
I wonder if this is a regular thing for the accused and their counsel to do?
Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #39
- Thread starter SoSueMe
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
alioop
Verified Attorney (AU)
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,132
- Reaction score
- 4
Goodness, just found out about bail application. It is GBC's right to reapply for bail at any time. The defence is going to have to convince the supreme court judge that there is something serious changed in the weight of evidence against him from the position at the date of the last bail application.
The issues of flight risk and interfering with witnesses will have not changed and the committal is only in another 3 months time from the date the bail application will be heard. He has the opportunity to test the prosecutions witnesses then and I think the judge will likely not grant bail for those reasons.
Seems like a money wasting exercise to me, particularly as even if he is granted bail he still has to have a committal. I also wonder if the same people who would have put up surety for bail would still be as willing to do so as they have been exposed to a lot more info about the evidence against him than they would have had prior to the previous bail application.
The issues of flight risk and interfering with witnesses will have not changed and the committal is only in another 3 months time from the date the bail application will be heard. He has the opportunity to test the prosecutions witnesses then and I think the judge will likely not grant bail for those reasons.
Seems like a money wasting exercise to me, particularly as even if he is granted bail he still has to have a committal. I also wonder if the same people who would have put up surety for bail would still be as willing to do so as they have been exposed to a lot more info about the evidence against him than they would have had prior to the previous bail application.
BreakingNews
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 6,544
The arrogance continues. This makes me feel so sick. Let Allison back to life for Christmas.
GBC and his lawyers have such a nerve! He is a real risk to himself and society. <modsnip>
If GBC is so arrogant to think himself worthy of bail, then he is arrogant enough to 'tamper' with witnesses and further stuff up the lives of those little girls and their grandparents.
Please, please Mr/Ms Legal System, don't let him out on bail.
GBC and his lawyers have such a nerve! He is a real risk to himself and society. <modsnip>
If GBC is so arrogant to think himself worthy of bail, then he is arrogant enough to 'tamper' with witnesses and further stuff up the lives of those little girls and their grandparents.
Please, please Mr/Ms Legal System, don't let him out on bail.
DrWatson
Verified Thoracic and Vascular Surgeon
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,390
- Reaction score
- 9
This is not good news, but that is on the assumption of guilt. We are assuming he is guilty. We have to keep that tiny little bit of doubt in mind, and we have no idea what is
(1) in the prosecution case in terms of evidence, or
(2) what the defence angle is.
I have a suspicion that apart from the obvious reason for wanting bail - he no doubt hates being in jail, even on remand - may be that he can work some more wheeling and dealing from the outside, like he did with the selling of that investment house down the coast.
I really, REALLY hope that the Dickies have adequate legal protection and advice, and everything locked away tighter than a nun's knickers...!
The bail hearing is set down for the 14th December - would that be open to the public, Alioop?
(1) in the prosecution case in terms of evidence, or
(2) what the defence angle is.
I have a suspicion that apart from the obvious reason for wanting bail - he no doubt hates being in jail, even on remand - may be that he can work some more wheeling and dealing from the outside, like he did with the selling of that investment house down the coast.
I really, REALLY hope that the Dickies have adequate legal protection and advice, and everything locked away tighter than a nun's knickers...!
The bail hearing is set down for the 14th December - would that be open to the public, Alioop?
Maybe his lawyers will argue that the following things have changed since the first hearing, therefore lessening the likelihood of flight and/or interfering with witnesses:
* The insurance monies have been frozen so he doesn't have the financial means to leave the country and start a new life somewhere.
* The girls are with the Dickies in a more formal custody arrangement than was previously the case (ie. he can't easily grab the girls and run).
* TM, who one would imagine he would be most likely to "interfere with", <modsnip>
I'd be interested in other people's theories on this ...
* The insurance monies have been frozen so he doesn't have the financial means to leave the country and start a new life somewhere.
* The girls are with the Dickies in a more formal custody arrangement than was previously the case (ie. he can't easily grab the girls and run).
* TM, who one would imagine he would be most likely to "interfere with", <modsnip>
I'd be interested in other people's theories on this ...
alioop
Verified Attorney (AU)
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,132
- Reaction score
- 4
Doc Watson is right. Under our legal system GBC is innocent until proven guilty.
The prosecution would now have his bail application material and they will prepare material to object to bail, again. They have a lot more evidence now than they did for the previous bail hearing so I expect their material will summarise this further evidence against him. For eg they knew the blood in the car was Allison's but they will now know if the blonde hair found stuck in that blood was hers and also if it was newly coloured. Also I am guessing they may have evidence of pollens and vegetation in or on the captiva.
So we will find out more of the evidence against him because of this bail application which will be good. At least it will keep us going until March next year.
The bail hearing will be open to the public, just like the last one was.
The prosecution would now have his bail application material and they will prepare material to object to bail, again. They have a lot more evidence now than they did for the previous bail hearing so I expect their material will summarise this further evidence against him. For eg they knew the blood in the car was Allison's but they will now know if the blonde hair found stuck in that blood was hers and also if it was newly coloured. Also I am guessing they may have evidence of pollens and vegetation in or on the captiva.
So we will find out more of the evidence against him because of this bail application which will be good. At least it will keep us going until March next year.
The bail hearing will be open to the public, just like the last one was.
possumheart
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,028
- Reaction score
- 211
Could this be a ploy by the defense to find out just how much evidence the prosecution have?
Legal eagles,
Would it be fair to assume that this second application for bail must be fairly strong as losing again would look pretty bad for the defence (I would imagine lawyers wouldn't like to lose face in a matter as high-profile as this)? Or would they simply be acting on GBC's request regardless of whether they believe the application will succeed?
Would it be fair to assume that this second application for bail must be fairly strong as losing again would look pretty bad for the defence (I would imagine lawyers wouldn't like to lose face in a matter as high-profile as this)? Or would they simply be acting on GBC's request regardless of whether they believe the application will succeed?
Humdinger
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,023
- Reaction score
- 31
Interesting point Poss!
I wonder if there will be another bomb threat?? I'd still love to know what happened there...
Makara
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,107
- Reaction score
- 86
Hope so! Next we'll see a 'For Sale' sign outside Arthur Gorrie with GBC's mug plastered on it as the exclusive agent. :what:
Alioop appreciate your interpretation of the Legal system for us.
Ooohm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 485
- Reaction score
- 2,025
While this bail application is disturbing to me, my instinct agrees with those who say it is lawyers doing their job. And maybe possumheart is onto something with the idea there is a strategic angle in this move. Right before Christmas though...that is definitely on purpose.
You are right Fuskier. We as a civilized society need to see legal justice done---IMO not out of love for Law but for sake of Community. Maybe there is no difference?
However as Makara said we will learn more about the evidence from the open court.
You are right Fuskier. We as a civilized society need to see legal justice done---IMO not out of love for Law but for sake of Community. Maybe there is no difference?
However as Makara said we will learn more about the evidence from the open court.
Oz Jen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2012
- Messages
- 816
- Reaction score
- 1,224
Alioop, are you able to clarify what constitutes a reason for a second bail application?
Does it necessarily include a serious change in weight of evidence against a defendant from the last bail application or can it be argued solely on changed 'flight risk' circumstances?
If the changed weight of evidence against him is mandatory for the second bail application to be heard, I'm worried!
If it's the 'flight risk' change only, I'm thinking along the same lines as those who have said that the frozen insurance monies may make him less of a flight risk.
Either way...I guess the bail application could have been prompted with the release of the Christmas Dinner menu at Arthur Gorrie!
IMOO
Does it necessarily include a serious change in weight of evidence against a defendant from the last bail application or can it be argued solely on changed 'flight risk' circumstances?
If the changed weight of evidence against him is mandatory for the second bail application to be heard, I'm worried!
If it's the 'flight risk' change only, I'm thinking along the same lines as those who have said that the frozen insurance monies may make him less of a flight risk.
Either way...I guess the bail application could have been prompted with the release of the Christmas Dinner menu at Arthur Gorrie!
IMOO
But wouldn't the defence have to be served with the evidence prior to the committal anyway? Or is it different with a committal as the defence won't be submitting evidence? Alioop we really value you!
Amee
Active Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,197
- Reaction score
- 6
Whats happened between the committal mention to now for him to apply for bail? Also what are the two broad grounds for the new bail application.?
He will remain in custody until the March committal, after Mr Mahony confirmed his client did not intend to again apply for bail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ommittal-hearing/story-e6frg6nf-1226514997774
Prisoners denied bail in the Supreme Court have to show evidence of a change of circumstances in order to make a second bail application.
Baden-Clay's Gold Coast-based lawyer, Darren Mahony, told The Courier-Mail yesterday there were two broad grounds for the new bail application.
http://www.ipswichadvertiser.com.au/news/gerard-baden-clay-make-second-bid-bail/1637480/
He will remain in custody until the March committal, after Mr Mahony confirmed his client did not intend to again apply for bail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ommittal-hearing/story-e6frg6nf-1226514997774
Prisoners denied bail in the Supreme Court have to show evidence of a change of circumstances in order to make a second bail application.
Baden-Clay's Gold Coast-based lawyer, Darren Mahony, told The Courier-Mail yesterday there were two broad grounds for the new bail application.
http://www.ipswichadvertiser.com.au/news/gerard-baden-clay-make-second-bid-bail/1637480/
Yes Doc, innocent until proved guilty in a Court of Law in principle. But lets remember that GBC has been charged as the accused murderer.
www.couriermail.com.au
Gold Coast-based lawyer, Darren Mahony, said there were two broad grounds for the new bail application:
i) that the brief of evidence does not substantiate or support all of the claims made by the prosecution during the (first) bail application;
ii) that evidence, not referred to on the initial bail application, exists inconsistent with the Crown case and/or relevant to the defense.
Prisoners denied bail in the Supreme Court have to show evidence of a change of circumstances in order to make a second bail application, stated above in Amee's post. So what could constitute evidence of a change of circumstances? They may claim evidence which was inconsistent with the Crown case was excluded from the first Bail application. If it was established that evidence was inconsistent and excluded would that be enough to claim 'a change of circumstances'? They would need to demonstrate that it was inconsistent, and I imagine, that it was excluded, but that may not be enough as this application may fail on the basis on i) above. It seems the Defense and GBC have examined the 'brief of evidence' and now claim it does not substantiate 'all' claims by the Prosecution for opposing Bail in the first application. They would need to demonstrate that the 'brief of evidence' does not 'substantiate' all claims by the Prosecution. But what about most claims by the Prosecution? Would this constitute 'a change in circumstances'? IMHO posing a flight risk could now be more serious and the possibility of interfering with witnesses still exists as in the first Bail application. So what constitutes a 'change of circumstances' to warrant and risk release of the accused on Bail? I imagine that the Prosecution has much evidence beyond the brief given to the Defense. Alioop your guidance is needed here. My limited opinion only.
www.couriermail.com.au
Gold Coast-based lawyer, Darren Mahony, said there were two broad grounds for the new bail application:
i) that the brief of evidence does not substantiate or support all of the claims made by the prosecution during the (first) bail application;
ii) that evidence, not referred to on the initial bail application, exists inconsistent with the Crown case and/or relevant to the defense.
Prisoners denied bail in the Supreme Court have to show evidence of a change of circumstances in order to make a second bail application, stated above in Amee's post. So what could constitute evidence of a change of circumstances? They may claim evidence which was inconsistent with the Crown case was excluded from the first Bail application. If it was established that evidence was inconsistent and excluded would that be enough to claim 'a change of circumstances'? They would need to demonstrate that it was inconsistent, and I imagine, that it was excluded, but that may not be enough as this application may fail on the basis on i) above. It seems the Defense and GBC have examined the 'brief of evidence' and now claim it does not substantiate 'all' claims by the Prosecution for opposing Bail in the first application. They would need to demonstrate that the 'brief of evidence' does not 'substantiate' all claims by the Prosecution. But what about most claims by the Prosecution? Would this constitute 'a change in circumstances'? IMHO posing a flight risk could now be more serious and the possibility of interfering with witnesses still exists as in the first Bail application. So what constitutes a 'change of circumstances' to warrant and risk release of the accused on Bail? I imagine that the Prosecution has much evidence beyond the brief given to the Defense. Alioop your guidance is needed here. My limited opinion only.
Champagne4lulu
Active Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 34
I agree with the doc, that he is innocent until proven guilty. As much as I have my own thoughts on it, we must keep that in mind.
Alicat, I thought the prosecution had handed over ALL their evidence to the defence now? And if that's the case, if there were inconsistencies etc, I guess they could make an app for bail? And that's what worries me. What in that brief of evidence has the potential to weaken this case and/or mean he is granted bail?
Will they have the detail of the supposed inconsistencies in the news tonight or will we only hear about that on the 14th?
Alicat, I thought the prosecution had handed over ALL their evidence to the defence now? And if that's the case, if there were inconsistencies etc, I guess they could make an app for bail? And that's what worries me. What in that brief of evidence has the potential to weaken this case and/or mean he is granted bail?
Will they have the detail of the supposed inconsistencies in the news tonight or will we only hear about that on the 14th?
- Status