Many were confused on Friday when former NRL star Jarryd Hayne's bail was overturned merely just after a week after he was spared being bail refused despite being found guilt of sexual assault without consent.
As usual, the media has not made it clear how this situation came to be, so let's break it down.
When Hayne was found guilt of his offence, it became inevitable that he is facing a full-time term of imprisonment.
Last year, now former former Attorney-General Mark Speakman and the NSW Parliament controversially inserted section 22B into the Bail Act which essentially states that if you are convicted (found guilty after trial like Hayne) of an offence and that person will serve a full time custodial sentence, then bail must be refused unless there are special or exceptional circumstances.
Hayne's legal term originally successfully argued that he had special or exceptional circumstances in that he would be a target in jail because of his profile and further that it would create hardship on his family.
On Friday, the DPP appealed and Supreme Court Justice Button was somewhat scathing of the original decision. He ultimately found that Hayne "faced unusual circumstances" but went on to say that his situation "fell well short of being special or exceptional".
Justice Button summarised that ultimately "..Mr Hayne is a person who committed two extremely grave sexual offences."
As a result Hayne's bail was refused and he is now behind bars even before he is formally sentenced.
Comentários