Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #39

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I realise each case is different however I've just checked out the bail applications in the Sica case. Keeping in mind it was all circumstantial evidence which they had on him....he applied for bail three times over a couple of years....

2008 - December 30 - Sica arrested and charged with three counts of murder after a five-and-a-half-year police investigation.

2009 - January - Sica applies for and is refused bail

August - Sica's committal hearing begins. It will run for 94 days over the course of the next 18 months.

December - Sica makes a second bid for bail, which is refused despite his father offering a $900,000 surety.

He later loses an appeal against this bail refusal

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...se-unfolded-20120703-21f4b.html#ixzz2DP23m1fz
 
Makara said:
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:
Click to expand...

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 
possumheart said:
Could this be a ploy by the defense to find out just how much evidence the prosecution have?
Click to expand...

The best way to defend is to know how the other team is going to attack.

Something along the lines of a "Cause of Death" perhaps..? Surely that would have to be in by now??


And would that not then be... evidence, not referred to on the initial bail application, exists inconsistent with the Crown case and/or relevant to the defense..?
 
possumheart said:
Could this be a ploy by the defense to find out just how much evidence the prosecution have?
Click to expand...

The defence already has all the evidence of over 400 witnesses. It was handed over to them and the defence decided from that evidence which ones they wanted to cross examine at the committal, narrowing it down to 43 witnesses. So its not a ploy to find out about the evidence.

Radster said:
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?
Click to expand...

We don't know how strong it is. I suspect it is just a few inconsistencies between what the prosecution had in their bail application material and the witness statements that were later prepared which the defence has now seen. So because of these inconsistencies I think the defence is just going to give bail another go. As long as someone is paying their legal fees, lawyers will give it a go if instructed by their client regardless of whether they think it will be successful.

Thinking said:
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!
Click to expand...

Yes all evidence has been given to the defence. The defence just challenges some evidence at the committal by way of cross examination of witnesses that have previously been agreed to by the prosecution, in this case 43 witnesses.

Fuskier said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good post Fuskier and you have summarised the issues very well.
 
I have put my comments in capitals to make them easier to see.
Radster said:
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. I DONT THINK THIS IS RELEVANT AS IT DOESNT STOP SOMEONE ELSE GIVING HIM MONEY TO FLEE. ALSO BEING A FLIGHT RISK DOESNT JUST MEAN LEAVING THE COUNTRY, IT JUST MEANS NOT VOLUNTARILY SHOWING UP IN COURT

* 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). MAYBE, BUT HE CAN BE A FLIGHT RISK ON HIS OWN. I THINK IT IS RELEVANT THAT HE COULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE GIRLS WHO MAY BE WITNESSES IF HE GETS BAIL.

* TM, who one would imagine he would be most likely to "interfere with", <modsnip> THE JUDGE WILL CONSIDER IF THERE IS A RISK HE WILL INTERFERE WITH ANY WITNESSES. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF WITNESSES, THAT HE KNOWS PERSONALLY OR LIVE IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS AND IS LIKELY TO CROSS PATHS WITH IF HE IS GRANTED BAIL. IT IS A BIG RISK I THINK.

I'd be interested in other people's theories on this ...
Click to expand...
 
possumheart said:
In other words a slippery bunch of customers ?????moo
Click to expand...

Hi Poss, if you are referring to GBC's lawyers, I think they are just doing their job. GBC has instructed them to reapply for bail which is his legal right.
 
alioop said:
I have put my comments in capitals to make them easier to see.
Click to expand...

Yes I initially thought he could argue that he is no longer a flight risk as insurance monies have been frozen etc, but he has money to fund the bail application, committal etc and obviously has money to offer as security - so he has the financial means to flee IMO!
 
I was referring to the motives of the BCs in entertaining the bail application. Deluded and slippery moo
 
Where on earth is all this money coming from?? I just don't get it. the proceeds from insurance and house sale frozen seems to have had no impact. He must have had enormous $$ stashed away all over the place. MOO.
 
It would not be uncommon for there to be inconsistencies and even errors in the prosecutions bail material, often filed before a lot of evidence is formally collected and the full brief of evidence prepared at a later date.

Pointing out some inconsistencies is not going to be enough to grant bail. The prosecution will update their summary of the evidence and the judge ( most likely a different one) will look afresh at the strength of evidence, the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of flight risk and interference with witnesses. Most people accused of murder do not get bail as police generally don't charge someone with murder unless they have strong evidence.

The opportunity for the prosecution's evidence to be tested will be at the committal in March. The evidence does not get tested at a bail hearing.

Don't forget that the defence appeared very dismissive of the prosecution's evidence in the first bail hearing, but the judge thought it was strong evidence for the purposes of refusing bail.
 
Champagne4lulu said:
Where on earth is all this money coming from?? I just don't get it. the proceeds from insurance and house sale frozen seems to have had no impact. He must have had enormous $$ stashed away all over the place. MOO.
Click to expand...

Really good point. I think he would qualify for legal aid, perhaps they are funding his legal defence. Though I understand his solicitors don't normally do legal aid but his barrister does. I know this only from ringing their receptionists and asking them.
 
The only way I see him getting bail if there is irrefutable evidence to prove he didn't do it. The only way I see this being the case is in his dreams!

Do you think the judge would take into consideration the public outcry this would cause if he was bailed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 133 more.
Total: 2,973 (members: 134, guests: 2,839)

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
2,839
Total visitors
2,973
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,754
Messages
18,112,961
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top