King vs. Nash - (30 Mar 2022)

Accused cannot be convicted of the charge unless the State has proven the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Criminal

The prosecution's case against the accused was that he entered into a bail undertaking on 25 August 2021 and that he was granted a bail extension on 15 September 2021 to appear on 17 September 2021 and that the accused failed to appear without reasonable cause and, further, failed to appear as soon as practicable thereafter, as he was required to do pursuant to the bail undertaking.

The accused is presumed innocent. The accused cannot be convicted of the charge unless the State has proven the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The State bears the onus of removing the presumption of innocence by establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden of proof never shifts. The standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard known to the law.

When a case against an accused person rests substantially upon circumstantial evidence, a verdict of guilty cannot be returned unless the proven facts are such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than that the accused is guilty. Guilt must not only be a rational inference, but it must be the only rational inference that the proven facts enable me to draw.

The accused was subject to a bail undertaking to attend the court hearing at the Supreme Court Stirling Gardens Courthouse on 17 September 2021. The accused signed a bail undertaking. The accused then received the series of emails from the Associate, which the accused acknowledged and replied to.

The accused failed to appear without reasonable cause. The accused did not contend that he had a reasonable cause, rather he maintained that he was not subject to a bail requirement to attend on 17 September 2021 and that in any event he did attend on that date. The prosecution has proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Present Court convict the accused of the charge.

Tags : BAIL UNDERTAKING APPEARANCE