Mr Standen attempted to apply for bail but this was opposed by the Crown citing evidence from the Australian Federal Police. Counsel submitted that the poor conditions Mr Standen was experiencing in prison which involved solitary confinement for his own protection was impacting his mental health. Counsel attempted to apply for bail by suggesting Mr Standen was willing to accept highly restrictive bail conditions in order to prevent him from absconding. The Crown countered the mental instability suggestion by submitting that the seriousness of Mr Standen’s mental condition had been overstated. Furthermore, the Crown submitted that Mr Standen was a flight risk and that if he was convicted then he would likely serve a long sentence. Considering these circumstances, the Crown submitted that the Mr Standen would likely abscond. The Judge deferred to the Crown’s argument and agreed to refuse bail.

Mr Standen’s defence counsel applied to have the second charge (taking part in supply of prohibited drug) dismissed as an abuse of process. It was argued that there was no separate criminality between the first and second charge and that the first count alone would be capable of reflecting all of the accused’s criminality. The Crown, however, argued that there was evidence of separate criminality to distinguish the conspiracy to supply and the taking part in supply. For counsel to have been successful,  it had to be proved that the prosecution of both the first and the second charges was oppressive. However the Judge agreed with the Crown stating he did not consider the prosecution of the second charge to be oppressive or constitute an error by the Crown.

Mr Standen’s counsel attempted to lodge an appeal on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in admitting a number of documents and that there was a miscarriage of justice arising from the failure of the jury to be directed that a finding of guilt on count 1 could only be made if they were satisfied that Mr Standen actually intended to use the imported substance to manufacture a controlled drug. Furthermore it was submitted that the trial judge erred in failing to dismiss the jury on the 68^th day of the trial following a note setting out their concerns as to the length of the trial. Additionally it was submitted that the trial judges summing up of the facts were unbalanced and led to a miscarriage of justice. Finally they noted that the sentence imposed for the second offence was manifestly excessive. Mr Standen’s counsel was ultimately unsuccessful and his appeal was dismissed. 

Mr Standen’s counsel raised five grounds for the appeal against conviction, all of which were dismissed. The appeal court found no errors in the admission of evidence which it found to be highly probative, relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also rejected the submissions relating to the alleged failure of the trial judge to direct the jury as to the elements of a conspiracy.  Furthermore, the appeal court found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to dismiss the jury on the 68^th day of the trial following a note setting out their concerns as to the length of the trial. Additionally, the argument that the trial judge’s summing up of the facts was unbalanced or unfair and led to a miscarriage of justice, was rejected. Finally, the appeal court noted that the sentence imposed for the second offence was not manifestly excessive, unreasonable or plainly unjust. Mr Standen’s counsel was ultimately unsuccessful and the appeal was dismissed.