Butler v The Queen - [2020] SASC 74

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
BUTLER v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 74
Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis (ex tempore)
16 April 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application for review of bail.
The applicant was taken into custody in January 2020 on, inter alia, charges of aggravated assault against his former partner. He is also charged with aggravated assault of the same former partner and contravention of an intervention order in September 2019. The alleged offending in January 2020 included punching the back of his former partner’s head and striking her with a water bottle, and punching and kicking her to the head. He also allegedly hit and kicked her head in September 2019.
A Magistrate refused bail on 26 March 2020. The applicant, a prescribed applicant under s 10A of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) (the Bail Act), contends that special circumstances exist for the granting of bail.
Held, dismissing the application:
1. The presumption against bail enacted by s 10A of the Bail Act is against all bail. Nonetheless, in some particular circumstances the availability of home detention bail, together with other matters, might amount to a special circumstance.
2. No combination of the applicant’s personal circumstances is sufficient to constitute special circumstances.
Bail Act 1985 (SA), s 10A; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 20; Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA), s 31, referred to.

BUTLER v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 74

KOURAKIS CJ (ex tempore): This is an application for the review of the refusal of bail by a Magistrate on 26 March 2020. The applicant, Mr Butler, was taken into custody on 28 January 2020 on, inter alia, charges of having on that day committed an aggravated assault on his former partner, Ms Nelson, and of committing the same offence on Ms Nelson less than a fortnight earlier.[1] Mr Butler has been in custody continuously since that time, initially at Mobilong Prison and now at Yatala Prison.
[1] Contrary to s 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
The alleged offending on 28 January 2020 included punching Ms Nelson to the back of her head and striking her with a bottle of water. The allegations as to the offence of aggravated assault on 17 January 2020 are more serious. It is alleged that Mr Butler assaulted Ms Nelson by punching and kicking her to the head.
Mr Butler is also charged with an aggravated assault of Ms Nelson in September 2019.[2] It is alleged that he assaulted her by hitting and kicking her head. On the same occasion, Mr Butler was charged with breaching the term of an intervention order imposed in the Northern Territory.[3] Mr Butler has a number of convictions for breaching that intervention order.
[2] Contrary to s 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
[3] Contrary to s 31(2aa)(a) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA).

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 Butler v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Butler v The Queen [2020] SASC 74
Case: [2020] SASC 74
Decision Date: 16 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Butler v The Queen, the appellant sought to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria to revoke his bail. The appellant, Mr Butler, was charged with serious criminal offences, including drug trafficking and possession of a firearm. The trial court had initially granted him bail but later revoked it due to alleged breaches of bail conditions. The matter was brought before the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the lower court's decision to revoke bail was justified.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal centred on whether the trial court correctly applied the principles governing the revocation of bail. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the bail conditions and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge exercised his discretion appropriately in revoking bail. The defence argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial judge failed to consider all relevant factors.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in revoking Mr Butler's bail. The court held that the evidence provided was sufficient to support the decision and that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion. The appellate court determined that the trial judge had appropriately weighed the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending against the principles of bail. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court's decision was within its jurisdiction and did not represent an error of law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision to revoke Mr Butler's bail. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public safety and the integrity of the judicial process, particularly in cases involving serious criminal charges. The final orders confirmed that Mr Butler would remain in custody pending the outcome of his trial.

Orders