R v Brownlow No. Sccrm-03-136

[2003] SASC 247

R v BROWNLOW

[2003] SASC 247

Application for bail review

1. GRAY J    The applicant, Scott Andrew Brownlow was convicted by jury verdict of the offence of indecent assault. The offending was grave. The victim was the applicant’s five month-old nephew.

2. The applicant was on bail during the trial. At the time of conviction, an application for bail pending sentence was made to the trial judge on the basis that the applicant would lose his employment if remanded in custody. The trial judge was informed that the applicant intended to appeal against the conviction. It was said that his family remained supportive. Guarantors were offered. The trial judge refused to grant a continuation of bail. He revoked bail and requested psychiatric and pre-sentence reports as a matter of urgency.

3. The applicant applied to this court for a review of the refusal of the trial judge to grant bail.

4. Section 10(2) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) provides:

   Where the applicant has been convicted of the offence in respect of which he or she has been taken into custody, the bail authority has, subject to this Act, an unfettered discretion as to whether the applicant should be released on bail.

5. There is no presumption for or against a grant of bail in these circumstances.

6. On the review application it was submitted that the applicant’s de facto partner and three children were dependent on his income. It was said that the applicant’s employer was growing impatient and that he may lose his job as a storeman if not released on bail promptly. It was submitted that this was the first occasion on which the applicant had been held in custody. He had no antecedents of relevance to this offending. The victim and his parents were said to be living some distance from Adelaide. It was submitted there was no danger of any contact between them and the applicant.

7. The Crown opposed a grant of bail on the basis that the application for leave did not have obvious merit. It was said that no undue delay was expected in the hearing of the leave to appeal application or the appeal if leave were granted. It was submitted that the applicant was not a good bail risk. An allegation of domestic violence against his de facto partner was currently before the magistrates court. It was said that this alleged offending occurred while the applicant was on bail for the indecent assault charge.

8. A home detention report was received. The suggested residence was assessed as being suitable for home detention with electronic monitoring. The psychiatric and pre-sentence reports ordered by the trial judge were not yet available.

9. The factors relied on by the applicant do not outweigh the conviction and the other matters to be put against a grant of bail. On the material before the court it is difficult to assess the prospects on appeal. In the circumstances a grant of bail cannot be justified. The application for review is refused.