R v Agius

In the case of R v Agius, the Supreme Court of South Australia was asked to consider an application for the estreatment of monetary sums, following the accused breaching the terms of his bail agreement. The accused had been granted home detention bail, but left the premises without permission and removed the electronic transmitter bracelet. The three guarantors, who had provided financial guarantees for the accused, applied for a reduction in the amount of forfeiture pursuant to s 19 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA). The court was required to determine whether the discretion in s 19(3) should be exercised in the circumstances, whether the guarantors had adequately complied with their obligations under the guarantee, whether the forfeiture would cause substantial hardship, and whether the forfeiture amount would act as a deterrent to the person released on bail.

The court held that alerting authorities was not sufficient on its own to deny forfeiture, as deterrence of the person released on bail was an important consideration. However, the court found that there were special reasons in this case to reduce the forfeiture amount. The court acknowledged that the guarantors had taken the steps reasonably required of them to ensure the accused complied with the terms of his bail agreement and to alert the authorities to the breach of those conditions. The court also found that great personal hardship would be caused by estreatment, and that the effect of forfeiture had not been properly taken into account when the pecuniary sums were fixed. The court therefore allowed the application, and ordered that the monetary sums be estreated, but the amounts of forfeiture be reduced.

The court ordered that the sum of $300 be estreated from the guarantee of Ms Cindy Agius-Stevens, $1,500 from the guarantee of Ms Christine Agius, and $100 from the guarantee of Ms Samarah Melaney. The court was conscious of the hardship that these orders would cause, but hoped that they would serve to focus the accused's attention on making amends for his actions. The court also hoped that the amounts estreated would serve to disabuse the mistaken belief that guarantors would generally be saved the amount of their guarantee if they complied with the obligation imposed by s 17A of the Act.