Ruling says inconvenience to family is not enough to issue relief sought
The Western Australian Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal has dismissed an application for bail pending a conviction appeal upon finding no exceptional circumstances to grant bail under clauses 1 and 3, schedule 1, part C of the Bail Act 1982.
In JSD -v- The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 7, the appellant faced accusations of serious conduct concerning four of his de facto children, ranging between nine and 13 years old. On 20 June 2024, after a District Court trial, he received a conviction for 25 sexual offences.
On 20 December 2024, the appellant received a total sentence of 19 years of imprisonment, with parole eligibility. On 30 September 2025, he filed a notice of appeal against the conviction. Around eight months after the relevant deadline, he brought his conviction appeal.
On 29 November 2025, the appellant filed a case asserting two appeal grounds. He also applied to adduce additional evidence on appeal.
First, he claimed that he had fresh evidence undermining one complainant’s credibility and establishing that his trial testimony was false, misleading, and untruthful. Second, he alleged that the failure to call two witnesses to give trial evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
On 11 December 2025, pending his conviction appeal, the appellant applied for bail to personally obtain further evidence to support the first ground, which he deemed difficult to get while incarcerated.
The appellant contended that he had a strongly arguable appeal and possessed 70 percent of the material needed. He added that he preferred not to ask his family to obtain the documents, considering his parents’ advanced age and his ex‑wife’s relatives and work responsibilities.
The respondent countered that the appellant’s circumstances did not constitute exceptional reasons to justify granting bail. Even if such reasons existed, the respondent alleged that:
Under the Bail Act’s pertinent provisions, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia saw no exceptional reasons or other basis to grant the appellant bail pending appeal.
In the circumstances, the appeal court found it unnecessary to determine whether granting bail would be otherwise appropriate, even if exceptional reasons had existed.
The appeal court acknowledged the difficulties facing an incarcerated, in‑person litigant preparing for an appeal. However, the appeal court pointed out that the appellant could:
The appeal court added that any potential inconvenience to the appellant’s family when assisting him with acquiring the material would not amount to an adequate reason to grant bail pending appeal.
Lastly, at this stage of the proceedings, the appeal court said it could not find the appeal likely to succeed.
