R v Cooke

[2003] SASC 403

R v COOKE

[2003] SASC 403

Magistrates Appeal

1. GRAY J                 This is a Crown application for bail review.

2. The accused Robert Cooke is charged with murder, causing death by dangerous driving and failing to truly answer.[1]

   [1]  The information includes:

3. On 4 November 2003 a magistrate granted bail.  The terms included that the accused not leave the State for any reason without permission; that he reside with his elderly mother at Port Willunga with at least one of his guarantors present at all times; that approval for granting employment be excluded; that he wear an electronic wristlet and comply with the rules of electronic monitoring; that he not communicate, either directly or indirectly, or approach any of the prosecution witnesses; and that he forfeit to the Crown the sum of $50,000.00 if he failed to comply with a term of the bail agreement.

4. As indicated the Crown sought a review of the grant of bail.  The grounds advanced included the gravity of the alleged offending and the risk of witness intimidation or interference.

5. In R v Collie (No. 2) [2002] SASC 247 the court made the following observations in relation to the approach to be taken to pre-trial bail applications:

   Pre-trial bail applications are common.  There are features about them that set them apart from other hearings, particularly those made during the course of a trial.  Bail applications must be determined expeditiously.  Time is of the essence.  The Crown will make allegations against an applicant.  These will often be untested assertions and may include information about the applicant’s character, propensity to act in a certain way, uncharged conduct and the perceived fear of the alleged victim or victims.  The court is required to make an assessment of the strength of these allegations and make predictions about the applicant’s future conduct.  The scope of a bail hearing is much broader than many other criminal proceedings.  There is a level of informality about the entire process.  The rules of evidence are not strictly enforced as the court is assessing risk not determining guilt.

   These observations are relevant to the way in which the material placed before this court is to be assessed.

   The Crown Case

6. The Crown case is that the deceased, Gregory Keam, met his death on or about 10.20 pm on 16 September 2003.  He was struck by a maroon coloured Toyota Landcruiser driven by the accused whilst walking east along a footpath on Norwood Parade, not far from The Colonist Tavern, Norwood.  It was said that the deceased was not the intended victim, but, rather, the intended victim was Steven Madden.

7. It is the Crown’s case that on the evening the alleged offences took place, Mr Madden and Sybil Nelson were at The Colonist Tavern, Norwood.  Mr Madden noticed a man looking at him and Ms Nelson.  Mr Madden said something in the nature of ‘What are you looking at’.  This man was later identified as being the accused.  Sometime later, Mr Madden and Ms Nelson left the hotel…