Aitken (a pseudonym) v The King - [2025] SASC 120

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

AITKEN (A PSEUDONYM) v THE KING
[2025] SASC 120
Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey (ex tempore)
18 July 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - CONDITIONS
A review of bail is sought following a Magistrate’s decision to refuse bail on 15 May 2025, pursuant to s 14(2)(a) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA).
By an Information dated 15 May 2025, the applicant is charged with serious offences, including:
1.Two counts of blackmail, contrary to s 172(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). By count 1 the applicant is charged with menacing a person, intending that the person submit to a demand, namely systemic changes at Glenunga International High School. By count 2 it is alleged that the applicant menaced a covert operative, intending that he submit to the demand of payment of large sums of Bitcoin and money.
2.The applicant is also charged with one count of an offence to contaminate goods, contrary to s 260(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). It is alleged that the applicant made it appear that food (yoghurt, brownies, juice jelly, hot cross buns and apples) had been or would be contaminated with lead acetate intending to cause prejudice, or a risk of prejudice, or the apprehension of a risk of prejudice to the health and safety of the public and, by doing so, cause public alarm or anxiety.

The Director was initially opposed to all forms of bail. However, the Director’s position changed, and it was accepted that the Court may find special circumstances.
Held, granting bail on home detention conditions:
1.As the applicant is a prescribed applicant the presumption in favour of bail under s 10 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) does not apply and the applicant cannot be released on bail unless he demonstrates the existence of “special circumstances”.
2.Notwithstanding the serious charges he faces, the applicant has demonstrated special circumstances which take this case outside the ordinary scope of the statutory provision.
3.Due to the ongoing nature of the police investigation into serious charges, and because it is likely that the applicant will need to be closely monitored whilst on home detention bail, the application is adjourned for two months pursuant to s 6(4) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) so as to determine whether bail should be continued, varied or revoked.

Bail Act 1985 (SA) ss 10, 10A, 14; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 172, 260, referred to.
Dunstan v DPP (1999) 92 FCR 168; Palmieri v The King [2024] SASC 153; Question of Law Reserved No. 3 of 2023 [2024] SASCA 29; Reynolds v The King (2023) 306 A Crim R 173; R v Buhlmann [2010] SASC 123; R v Cekic (2014) 244 A Crim R 462; R v Lombardy (2013) 115 SASR 577; Saywell v Yiu (1976) 14 SASR 56

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aitken (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Aitken (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] SASC 120
Case: [2025] SASC 120
Decision Date: 18 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Aitken, referred to by a pseudonym, who was contesting the revocation of their bail conditions. The case was heard in an unspecified Australian court, with Aitken facing serious charges and the Crown seeking to either revoke or vary the bail conditions. The legal issues revolved around whether the bail conditions should be revoked or varied, considering the seriousness of the charges and the need for close monitoring of the applicant during the investigation. The court had to weigh the principles of fairness and the presumption of innocence against the public interest in ensuring that serious charges are properly investigated.

The court examined the ongoing police investigation, the severity of the charges, and the necessity for stringent bail conditions. It was noted that the applicant had been on home detention bail, which required close monitoring. The court considered the likelihood of the applicant needing ongoing supervision and the risk they might pose to the community. The presiding judge proposed deferring the decision on the bail conditions for two months to allow for further investigation and assessment. This deferment was made under section 6(4) of the Bail Act, allowing for a review of the bail terms.

The court ultimately decided to grant bail to Aitken on strict home detention conditions, largely as agreed by the parties. The conditions included a cash surety of $5,000 provided jointly by the applicant's parents, with each parent also providing a guarantee of $5,000. The matter was adjourned to a later date to allow for the ongoing investigation and potential further review of the bail conditions. The decision highlighted the balance between ensuring the applicant's right to liberty and the need to protect the community and ensure the investigation's integrity.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

LIVESEY ACJ

However, because of the ongoing nature of the police investigation into very serious charges, and because it is likely that the applicant will need to be closely monitored whilst on home detention bail, I propose deferring this matter for two months pursuant to s 6(4) of the Bail Act so as to determine whether bail should be continued, varied or revoked. Conclusion Bail will be granted on the strict home detention bail conditions largely agreed between the parties and initialled by me. It will be a condition of bail that the applicant’s parents jointly provide a cash surety of $5,000 and that they each provide a guarantee of $5,000. The matter is adjourned to Tuesday, 23 September 2025 at 10.15 am.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LIVESEY ACJ

Full text does not contain this section.