R v Briggs - [2014] SASC 62

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v BRIGGS
[2014] SASC 62
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan
22 May 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application to review an order of a Magistrate refusing to grant the applicant bail. Applicant charged with firearm and drug-related offences.
Whether the application for bail is governed by s 10A of the Bail Act 1985 (SA). Whether the applicant established the existence of special circumstances justifying his release on bail.
Held (allowing the application for review):
1 Where bail is opposed by the prosecution on the basis that an applicant is a prescribed applicant by force of s 10A(2)(e) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) on the basis that the circumstance said to amount to a serious firearm offence is the connection between the firearm offence and the serious drug offence pursuant to s 20AA(1)(d) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), the prosecution must satisfy the Court that such a connection exists.
2 Section 10A(2)(e) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) is not enlivened and the presumption against bail does not apply in respect of the applicant.
3 If s 10A(2)(e) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) is enlivened, special circumstances exist justifying the applicant's release on bail.

R v BRIGGS
[2014] SASC 62
Criminal: Application for Review of Bail

SULAN J: On 1 May 2014, I heard an application for a review of the decision of the Magistrates Court refusing to grant bail to the applicant, Ryan Frederick Briggs. I ordered that the applicant be released on bail and indicated that I would provide reasons for doing so later. These are those reasons.
Background
On Saturday 5 April 2014, police attended at the applicant’s premises at Morphett Vale and executed a general search warrant after receiving information that a person at the address had supplied cannabis to another person. The applicant was not present at the time of the search and could not be contacted by police. Inside the premises police located an imitation handgun in the top drawer of a bedside cabinet in the master bedroom. A large tub containing cannabis was located under a bed in the spare bedroom. Kitchen scales with cannabis residue were located in the kitchen cupboard. An amount of $5,550 in cash was found in a drawer insider the wardrobe in the master bedroom.
At around 2.30pm on Sunday 6 April 2014, police returned to the Morphett Vale address and arrested the applicant. The applicant told police that the firearm located in the master bedroom was in the house when he moved in and that he was not aware that it was an offence to possess it. He said that the cannabis was for personal use and that the cash was his savings.
He was subsequently charged on Complaint as follows:
Offence details
1. On the 6^th day of April 2014 at MORPHETT VALE in the said State,

was in possession of a class…

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 R v Briggs

Details

AGLC: R v Briggs [2014] SASC 62
Case: [2014] SASC 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Briggs, the applicant sought bail while awaiting trial on charges related to drug offences. The dispute centred on the applicant’s eligibility for bail, considering the potential risk he posed to the community if released. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant argued that he did not represent a significant risk to the community, given the relatively minor nature of the alleged drug offences. Conversely, the prosecution maintained that the applicant’s potential for reoffending and the associated risks warranted continued detention.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant posed a risk to the community that outweighed the presumption in favour of bail for those charged with drug offences of lesser severity. This involved weighing the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences against the applicant's personal circumstances, criminal history, and any other relevant factors that could influence the risk assessment. The court considered whether the applicant fell within the category of offenders who, by virtue of the seriousness of their alleged offences, posed a heightened risk to the community.

The court concluded that the applicant did not represent a significant risk to the community. It found that the alleged offences, while serious, did not place the applicant in the category of offenders who Parliament intended to be kept in custody due to the elevated risk they pose. The court was satisfied that the applicant was not likely to reoffend and that there were adequate conditions that could be imposed to ensure his appearance at trial. As such, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail, emphasising the presumption in favour of bail for minor drug offences and the applicant's lack of a criminal history.

The final orders of the court were to release the applicant on bail forthwith, subject to certain conditions designed to mitigate any potential risk to the community and to ensure the applicant's attendance at future court hearings.

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 applicant does not pose a risk to the community if released on bail. He is not a person who it can be said was contemplated by Parliament as posing a particular risk to the community over and above the risk posed by persons who are charged with drug offences at the lower end of seriousness for those offences.Conclusion For these reasons, I released the applicant on bail forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.