POL v Police

[2017] SASC 155

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

POL v POLICE

[2017] SASC 155

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Vanstone

27 October 2017

MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - GROUNDS

Application for extension of time within which to appeal against the imposition of court fees, prosecution costs and levies following the appellant's plea of guilty to two offences of breaching bail.  Appellant wishes to argue that he would not have pleaded guilty had he understood that the fees would apply and that the breaches of bail were minor.

Held: Application dismissed. There is no utility in granting an extension of time as neither the appeal grounds nor the arguments put in support of them raise any matter which requires any re-consideration.

Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 11, referred to.

POL v POLICE
[2017] SASC 155

Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

VANSTONE J.

1. On 15 December 2016 the appellant entered into a bail agreement. A term of that agreement was that he report once weekly, on a Tuesday, to the Holden Hill Police Station. On two occasions, namely 31 January 2017 and 14 February 2017, the appellant failed to report as required. He was charged with two offences of failing to comply with the terms of a bail agreement, contrary to s 17 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA). He pleaded guilty to both offences before a Magistrate. The Magistrate discharged him without penalty on both offences, but on each file imposed court fees, the victims of crime levy and prosecution costs, totalling $1,040.

2. The appellant now seeks an extension of time within which to appeal, wishing to agitate grounds claiming that he would not have pleaded guilty had he understood that those fees would be levied, that he should not have been subject to the bail agreement in the first place, that the breaches were minor and that he was not guilty of the underlying offence in any event.

3. The appellant was unrepresented both in this Court and before the Magistrate.  I have read a transcript of that hearing.  The appellant asked the Magistrate not to impose a conviction and not to fine him.  After some discussion the Magistrate acceded to both requests.  The appellant pointed out to the Magistrate, as indeed he did to me, that on both occasions when he failed to report as required, he reported on the following day.  He did not explain why he was unable to report on the correct day.  Indeed, he said to me, “At the end of the day, my reasons are my reasons”.  In any event, in the face of the appellant’s clear admission both to the Magistrate and to me that he failed to appear on the appointed days, there can be no suggestion of a miscarriage of justice and no reason to permit a withdrawal of the pleas of guilty.

4. The appellant argues that the offences were both minor and unintentional. Further, he argues that he should never have been subject to a reporting condition at all. He calls in aid s 11(4) of the Bail Act which provides that conditions (other than conditions as to the conduct of the applicant while on bail) must not be imposed unless they are reasonably necessary.  However, it seems to me that the condition requiring the applicant to report weekly was a condition as to the conduct of the applicant while on bail.  In any event, again, whether or not the imposition of that condition was onerous in the circumstances is not a matter which is comprehended by this appeal.  The remedy available to the applicant was to seek a review of that condition, or to ask the Magistrate to remove it.  It is too late now to argue that the condition was not called for.  Neither do I agree that the breaches were so trivial that there should have been no charges arising from them.  Before me, it seemed that the appellant’s attitude to his obligations under the bail agreement was rather cavalier.  Anyway, no penalty as such was imposed for the breaches and no conviction was recorded.

5. In my view, neither the grounds of appeal nor the arguments put in support of them raise any matter which requires any re-consideration of the course taken in the court below.  While it is true that the appellant is facing a substantial financial obligation and it is probably one he was not expecting having regard to the Magistrate’s sympathetic approach, that result flows from the applicant’s less than responsible attitude to compliance with the terms of his bail. 

6. In these circumstances, there is no utility in allowing an extension of time.

7. I make the following orders:

   1.The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is dismissed.

   2.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed at $300.