R v Doyle - [2014] SASC 199

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v DOYLE
[2014] SASC 199
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Sulan
18 December 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) to review a decision of a Magistrate granting the respondent bail. Applicant charged with blackmail under s 172 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Applicant is a prescribed applicant under s 10A of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) which provides a presumption against bail. The applicant demonstrated special circumstances to justify release on bail. Application refused.
Bail Act 1935 (SA) s 10A; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 172, referred to.
R v Lombardi ]2013] SASC 61, applied.
R v Buhlmann [2010] SASC 123, considered.

R v DOYLE
[2014] SASC 199
Criminal: Application for Review of Bail

SULAN J: This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review a Magistrate’s decision granting bail to the respondent, John William Doyle, on 16 October 2014. I dismissed the application on 17 October 2014 and ordered that the respondent be released on bail under the existing agreement. I indicated that I would provide reasons. These are those reasons.
Background
On 6 September 2014, the respondent allegedly committed blackmail. The complainant was previously in a relationship with the respondent’s current partner. It is alleged that the respondent telephoned the complainant and said ‘You’ve got until 12 o’clock tonight to give me $5000 or I’m going to kill your son and you’re going to have to explain to your wife why he’s dead.’ The complainant reported that threat to police on the same day. At the time of this alleged offence, the applicant was on bail for unrelated offences. Additionally, his partner was a protected person under an intervention order.
On 8 September 2014, the respondent allegedly assaulted his partner. On 10 September 2014, he was taken into custody on the assault charge in addition to two counts of failing to comply with a bail agreement and two counts of contravening a term of an intervention order. The respondent was refused police bail. An application for bail before a Magistrate was refused on 11 September 2014. He was granted bail by a different Magistrate on 17 September 2014 in relation to these charges.
On 18 September 2014, the respondent allegedly assaulted the first complainant. It is alleged that at Sefton Plaza the respondent kicked the complainant to the front of his left upper leg while the complainant was speaking on his phone. The respondent then said ‘you fucking faggot’ and walked away. This assault and the blackmail charge were the subject of the application.
On 16 October 2014, the respondent was arrested in relation to the blackmail and assault charges. He was refused police bail. Subsequently, on that day the respondent was granted bail by a Magistrate. The terms of the bail agreement require the respondent to comply with the following conditions:
· Not…

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 Doyle

Details

AGLC: R v Doyle [2014] SASC 199
Case: [2014] SASC 199
Decision Date: 18 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Doyle, the respondent, Doyle, sought to have his bail revoked by the court. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of the Bail Act, specifically regarding the conditions under which bail could be revoked or varied. The court hearing this matter was the Magistrates' Court.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on the statutory provisions of the Bail Act and the particular circumstances of the case. The court needed to determine whether the Magistrate's decision to release Doyle on bail was in accordance with the Bail Act and whether special circumstances justified the continued release on bail. The court also had to assess the seriousness of the alleged offences and the respondent's personal circumstances.

The court's reasoning focused on the fact that the alleged blackmail offences were relatively minor, with no follow-up action taken by the respondent. The court noted that the police did not consider these offences serious enough to warrant immediate action. The court also considered the respondent's personal circumstances and determined that there were special circumstances justifying the release on bail. The Magistrate's decision was found to have overlooked the relevant provisions of the Bail Act, but the court was satisfied that the release was justified under special circumstances.

The court concluded by dismissing the application to revoke bail and ordered that Doyle continue on bail under the existing conditions. This decision highlighted the importance of strictly adhering to the Bail Act while also considering the unique circumstances of each case.

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 circumstances of the alleged offending, along with the respondent’s personal circumstances, place the respondent beyond the contemplated scope of the statutory provision. In particular, I have had regard to the fact that the blackmail allegations are of a relatively minor nature for that offence. The threat and demand were allegedly made, but there was no follow up. I have had regard to the fact that the police did not regard the alleged offences as sufficiently serious to follow them up immediately. The respondent was arrested when he committed other relatively minor offences.Conclusion The Magistrate’s decision releasing the respondent on bail failed to consider the relevant provision in the Bail Act. However, I was satisfied that there were special circumstances to justify the release of the respondent on bail. I dismissed the application and ordered that the respondent continue on bail, pursuant to the existing agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.