Crombie v The Queen - [2020] SASC 197

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
CROMBIE v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 197
Ruling of The Honourable Justice Livesey (ex tempore)
2 October 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
The applicant was arrested and charged with entering a place of residence as a trespasser with the intention of committing theft, assault and multiple counts of breach of bail. Bail was applied for and refused in the Magistrates Court. Pursuant to s 14 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) the applicant made an application in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the order of the Magistrate refusing her bail.
Held, allowing the application;
1. The primary difficulty for the applicant is that she is charged with numerous breaches of bail agreements.
2. Nonetheless there is some evidence that these are explained, in part, by untreated mental illness.
3. Bail is granted on the basis of strict home detention conditions, residing with her parents and requiring that the applicant obtain mental health treatment.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 14, s 17, s 22; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 20, s 134, s 170; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), s 17, referred to.

CROMBIE v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 197
Criminal: Application
LIVESEY J:
Introduction

This is an application for a review of bail pursuant to s 14(2)(a) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) (the Act) following a Magistrate’s refusal to grant bail on 26 August 2020. On this review, the applicant seeks bail on strict home detention conditions, which will allow her to reside with her parents who are prepared to act as guarantors.
Ultimately, I have decided to grant bail on this basis, albeit that only the applicant’s father will be required to provide a guarantee.
The subject alleged offending
The applicant is charged on Information dated 20 August 2020 with the following offences:
1On 31 July 2020 without reasonable excuse failed to comply with a bail agreement entered into on 26 May 2020, contrary to s 17(1) of the Act;
2On 31 July 2020 without reasonable excuse failed to comply with a bail agreement entered into on 24 June 2020, contrary to s 17(1) of the Act; and
3On 31 July 2020 without reasonable excuse failed to comply with a bail agreement entered into on 21 April 2020 contrary to s 17(1) of the Act.
It is alleged that on 31 July this year the applicant spoke with an officer from the Department for Correctional Services seeking a pass to see her doctor. The applicant was given permission to attend her doctor’s practice. However, on 7 August checks were made regarding the applicant’s attendance. These revealed that she did not attend her doctor’s practice but instead attended a private residence and a supermarket without permission.
On 20 August 2020 police attended at the applicant’s nominated bail address in West Lakes, whereupon she was located and arrested. The applicant declined to answer questions.
The circumstances of…

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 Crombie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Crombie v The Queen [2020] SASC 197
Case: [2020] SASC 197
Decision Date: 2 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case was arrested and charged with entering a place of residence as a trespasser with the intention of committing theft, assault, and multiple counts of breach of bail. The applicant sought bail in the Magistrates Court, but her application was refused. Under section 14 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA), the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court for a review of the Magistrate's refusal of bail.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's history of bail breaches, coupled with her untreated mental health issues, warranted the continued refusal of bail. The court had to balance the applicant's right to liberty against the need to ensure public safety and the likelihood of the applicant appearing in court if released on bail. The court also needed to consider the terms under which bail might be granted, if at all, given the applicant's circumstances.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the charges and the breaches of bail, found that there was some evidence suggesting that the breaches were partly due to the applicant's untreated mental health issues. The court recognised the importance of addressing these underlying issues to prevent future breaches. Consequently, the court granted bail, subject to strict home detention conditions. These conditions included residing with her parents and requiring the applicant to obtain mental health treatment. This approach aimed to balance the applicant's need for treatment and support with the imperative of maintaining public safety.

The court's final orders included granting bail under the strict conditions outlined above. The applicant was to reside with her parents and comply with home detention, while also being required to seek and follow through with mental health treatment. This decision reflects the court's consideration of both the gravity of the charges and the applicant's need for mental health support.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The primary difficulty for the applicant is that she is charged with numerous breaches of bail agreements.

2. Nonetheless there is some evidence that these are explained, in part, by untreated mental illness.

3. Bail is granted on the basis of strict home detention conditions, residing with her parents and requiring that the applicant obtain mental health treatment.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.