Event and Time
Event Description
- Christopher Keene applied for bail on a charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice, related to alleged collusion with John Verdesoto and Tracey Stephen regarding a bail application.
Application and Claims
- The application for bail was based on the argument that the prosecution's case was weak and that the applicant did not pose an unacceptable risk if released.
Judicial Decisions
- Initially, bail was refused, but on subsequent applications, the court considered the allegations, procedural history, and the conditions of release.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Applicant’s Claims:
- The applicant argued that he should be granted bail, claiming the prosecution evidence was weak and primarily based on a single phone call. - He contended he posed no unacceptable risk, as he had complied with previous court orders and had support in the community.
- Respondent’s Claims:
- The respondent maintained that the applicant was an unacceptable risk, pointing to his lengthy criminal history, outstanding warrants, and previous failures to comply with conditions. - They argued that the applicant’s attempt to interfere with the course of justice by attempting to concoct a false alibi presented significant concerns.
Ruling and Impact
Ruling Result
- The court ultimately decided that the applicant was prima facie entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that he posed an unacceptable risk, given the lengthy delay before the trial and conditions that could mitigate risks.