Hird v The King

[2025] SASCA 69

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Criminal)

HIRD v THE KING

[2025] SASCA 69

Decision of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey  (ex tempore)

11 June 2025

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - AFTER CONVICTION

The applicant applied for bail pending appeal pursuant to s 10(2) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA). The appellant sought bail on the basis of home detention bail. The respondent opposed bail in any form.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of threatening to kill or endanger life, contrary to s 19(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA), and one count of aggravated assault, contrary to s 20(3) of the CLCA. The appellant was sentenced by the sentencing judge to four years and 11 days imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.

The offending involved the applicant’s domestic partner and their neighbour’s sister.  The first charge of threatening to kill or endanger life constituted the applicant threatening to kill his partner, whilst the aggravated assault involved the applicant putting his arm around his partner’s neck and threatening her.  The second charge of threatening to kill or endanger life involved the applicant taking a handgun and pointing the barrel of the gun to the forehead of their neighbour’s sister.  She did not know that the handgun was a replica.

Held, refusing bail pending appeal and dismissing the application:

1.The discretion conferred by s 10(2) of the Bail Act must be exercised having regard to all of the relevant factors. According to s 10(4) of the Bail Act, primary consideration must be given “to the need that the victim may have, or perceive, for physical protection from the applicant”.

2.The offending for which the applicant has been convicted is very serious.

3.Although the appeal raises genuine issues, it is not such an obvious case that it is appropriate to predict the likely outcome of the appeal.

4.In particular, whilst there appears to be a material error regarding the failure of the sentencing judge to consider home detention, the outcome on re-sentence cannot be predicted.

5.Releasing a convicted and imprisoned appellant on bail pending a sentence appeal will necessarily raise the policy considerations which tell against bail, referred to in cases such as R v Giordano and Beshara.

Bail Act 1985 (SA) ss 10(2), 10(4); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 19(1), 20(3), 20A(1); Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 96, referred to.
Beshara & Kleut v Paphitis (1987) 136 LSJS 16; C, TL v Police [2010] SASC 115; Deng v The King [2023] SASCA 35; Deng v The King (No 2) (2023) SASR 1; Ex Parte Maher (1986) 1 Qd R 303; Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; Nankivell v The King [2024] SASCA 71; R v Baker [2000] SASC 281; R v Blayney [2002] SASC 184; R v Flanigan (unreported judgment, Supreme Court of South Australia, Debelle J, 25 November 1996, S5937; R v Frederick