R v Blair No. Sccrm-02-45 - [2002] SASC 249

R v BLAIR
[2002] SASC 249

Gray J This is an application for bail.
Peter William Blair and Dean Ronald Kipa were jointly charged with unlawful imprisonment, demanding money with menaces and three counts of robbery.[1] Both accused were refused police bail. Following this refusal both applied for bail before a magistrate. The magistrate considered the applications “afresh” on the material before him. Bail was granted to both accused on conditions.
[1] The Information was as follows: “... that Peter William Blair (DOB 7/1/1965) of no fixed place of abode ... and Dean Ronald Kipa, (DOB 3/12/1969) of 8 Dorrigo Street, Newcastle. NSW (defendant) on the 2nd day of November, 2001 at Adelaide and other places in the said State, unlawfully and injuriously imprisoned [S] and detained him for about two hours against his will.
The Crown applied to have the magistrate’s decision reviewed pursuant to section 14 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA)[2]. On 21 December 2001 the Crown’s application for a review of bail was granted. The magistrate’s order was set aside. Both accused were remanded in custody. However they were given liberty to make a fresh bail application in the event that their circumstances changed. A detailed summary of the review proceedings appears in the reasons for decision.[3]
[2] As the magistrate had not reviewed the decision of the police it was agreed that Section 15A of the Bail Act had no application.
[3] [2001] SASC 430 delivered 21 December 2001
Mr Blair the current applicant has applied for bail. His counsel advanced four matters in support of the application.
It was submitted that the applicant suffers from ongoing complications associated with diabetes. It was said that his condition was not easily managed in Yatala Labour prison and could be treated more successfully if he was released on home detention bail. Dr Geddes a locum prison doctor provided a report. It was his opinion that whilst the applicant’s treatment had been delayed at times, this was principally due to the applicant not communicating his alleged difficulties with staff and a lack of self discipline. Dr Geddes did not suggest that the applicant’s health would be seriously compromised if he remained in custody.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that a residence suitable for home detention bail with electronic monitoring had now become available in South Australia. The applicant’s de facto partner Julie Blair had recently moved permanently to South Australia and was willing to have the applicant reside at her home. She was also prepared to act as a guarantor and provide a substantial guarantee.
It was further submitted that electronic monitoring technology had recently been improved. It was said that the improvements went some way to minimising the risk of a breach of bail remaining undetected for any lengthy period. No precise technical advance was identified. No evidence was presented in support of this submission.
Counsel for the applicant emphasised the length of time that the applicant had been in custody on remand. It was said that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Blair No. Sccrm-02-45 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] SASC 249
Decision Date: 5 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the case of R v Blair No. Sccrm-02-45 was heard. The defendants, Peter William Blair and Dean Ronald Kipa, were charged with multiple offences, including kidnapping, robbery, and making threats. The alleged victim, referred to as [S], was unlawfully imprisoned, robbed, and threatened by the defendants. The legal dispute centred around the defendants' eligibility for bail under the Bail Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendants qualified for bail, particularly considering the severity of the charges against them. The court examined the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the potential risk to the community, and the defendants' likelihood of absconding or reoffending. The defendants argued that the allegations were severe but maintained that they should be granted bail to await trial.

The court, after considering the severity of the charges and the potential risk to the community, determined that the defendants did not meet the criteria for bail. The gravity of the alleged offences, coupled with the risk of reoffending and absconding, led the court to conclude that the defendants should remain in custody until their trial. The court found that the defendants' alleged actions demonstrated a significant threat to public safety and that granting bail would not be appropriate under the circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that the application for bail by Peter William Blair and Dean Ronald Kipa was dismissed, and they were to remain in custody pending their trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The application for bail must be dismissed.LIST OF CITATIONS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE JUDGMENT[1] The Information was as follows: “... that Peter William Blair (DOB 7/1/1965) of no fixed place of abode ... and Dean Ronald Kipa, (DOB 3/12/1969) of 8 Dorrigo Street, Newcastle. NSW (defendant) on the 2nd day of November, 2001 at Adelaide and other places in the said State, unlawfully and injuriously imprisoned [S] and detained him for about two hours against his will. 2. Between the 1st day of November, 2001 and the 10th day of November, 2001 at Adelaide and other places in the said State, without reasonable and probable cause, demanded property and money of [S] with threats in relation to his life, health, safety, security or well being of [S]. Section 3(1) of the Kidnapping Act, 1960. 3. On the 2nd day of November, 2001 at Adelaide and other places in the said State, together with other persons, robbed [S] of money in the amount of $90. Section 158(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935. 4. On the 2nd day of November, 2001 at Adelaide and other places in the said State, together with other persons, robbed [S] of a motor vehicle of the value of about $10,000. Section 158(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935. 5. On the 2nd day of November, 2001 at Adelaide and other places in the said State, together with other persons, robbed [S] of money in the amount of $500. Section 158(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935. ” 2 As the magistrate had not reviewed the decision of the police it was agreed that Section 15A of the Bail Act had no application. 3 [2001] SASC 430 delivered 21 December 20014 (1989-1990)168 CLR 23 at 31-325 R v Karger [2000] SASC 14; R v Duke [1999] SASC 431; Outman v The Queen [2001] WASC 162; Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 199; Alexopoulos v The Queen, unreported VSC, 23 February 1998.6 Counsel for the co-accused Mr Kipa advised that funding has been put in place sufficient to allow for a 15 day trial.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.