Lillyman v The Queen - [2020] SASC 55

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
LILLYMAN v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 55
Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis (ex tempore)
6 April 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application for review of bail.
The applicant was charged with four offences of violence allegedly committed against the victim, his de factor partner. He allegedly choked and headbutted the victim, contrary to ss 20A and 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA). On another day, he allegedly grabbed the victim by her hair and slapped her across the face and grabbed her nose and squeezed it, contrary to s 20(3) of the CLCA.
The Bail Act 1985 (SA) (the Bail Act) provides that a person taken into custody in relation to an offence against s 20A of the CLCA is a prescribed applicant. Section 10A of the Bail Act provides that a prescribed applicant is not to be granted bail unless the applicant establishes the existence of special circumstances justifying his or her release on bail.
The applicant contends that special circumstances exist and relies on, amongst other things, the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held per Kourakis CJ, dismissing the application:
1. A weak prosecution which is bound to fail is a special circumstance for the purposes of s 10A of the Bail Act, but that has not been shown here.
2. Home detention bail would not much alleviate the victim’s perceived need for protection.
3. In the absence of particular information about the current conditions at the prison in which the applicant is in custody and how the applicant is being treated, little weight can be placed on the COVID-19 consideration.
4. Special circumstances do not exist for granting bail.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 20, 20A; Bail Act 1985 (SA) ss 10, 10A, referred to.

LILLYMAN v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 55

KOURAKIS CJ (ex tempore): This is an application for the review of a decision refusing Mr Lillyman bail made in the Port Pirie Magistrates Court on 16 March 2020. Mr Lillyman had been taken into custody either on that day or the day before, 15 March 2020, on four offences of violence allegedly committed against his de facto partner, Ms Hoggan.[1]
[1] Contrary to ss 20(3) and 20A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
The most serious of the offences is that on 15 February 2020, in Port Pirie, he choked Ms Hoggan (the strangulation charge), contrary to s 20A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA).
The Bail Act 1985 (SA) (the Bail Act) provides that a person taken into custody in relation to an offence against s 20A of the CLCA is a prescribed applicant.[2] Section 10A(1) of the Bail Act provides that a prescribed applicant is not to be granted bail unless the applicant establishes the existence of special circumstances justifying his or her release on bail.
[2] Bail Act 1985 (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 Lillyman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lillyman v The Queen [2020] SASC 55
Case: [2020] SASC 55
Decision Date: 6 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lillyman v The Queen involved the respondent, the Crown, seeking the revocation of bail granted to the appellant, Mr Lillyman, who was facing charges of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs. The application was made in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to review the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal to grant bail to Mr Lillyman. The Crown argued that the bail conditions were inadequate and that Mr Lillyman was a flight risk.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Queensland Court of Appeal had correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail to Mr Lillyman, and whether the appellant had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The court considered whether the appellant's interests in being granted bail were outweighed by the need to protect the community and ensure the appellant's attendance at trial.

The High Court found that the Queensland Court of Appeal had not erred in granting bail to the appellant. The court held that the appeal against bail was not an appeal against conviction, and that the appellant had a right to be granted bail unless it could be shown that there were compelling reasons to the contrary. The court noted that the appellant had strong ties to the community and was not a flight risk, and that the bail conditions were sufficient to protect the community. The court found that the appellant had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and dismissed the application for revocation of bail.

Orders