R v Hantis - [2004] NSWSC 153

CITATION: R v HANTIS [2004] NSWSC 153

HEARING DATE(S): 4 March 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

DECISION: Application for bail refused

CATCHWORDS: Application for bail - exceptional circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: s9C Bail Act 1978

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
JACQUES LOUIS GUY HANTIS

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 71116 OF 2004

COUNSEL:
D Laird
(Crown)
D Pullinger
(Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
DPP
(Crown)
W R Goodman & Associates
(Applicant)

- 1 -

N THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

THURSDAY 4 MARCH 2004

71116 OF 2004

REGINA v JACQUES LOUIS GUY HANTIS

JUDGMENT – Application for bail

(VIDEOLINK TO LONG BAY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX)

1 This application for bail falls for consideration pursuant to s9C of the Bail Act, which was enacted in the Bail Amendment legislation in 2003. That section provides that an authorised officer or court is not to grant bail to a person in respect of an offence of murder unless the court is satisfied that “exceptional circumstances” justify the grant of bail.

2 In the second reading speech in the New South Wales Parliament a Mr Gaudry on behalf of the Attorney General moved that the bill containing the clause that became this section be read a second time and said that the bill was to provide for (three) things: “first, to prevent a person who is accused of murder from being granted bail other than in exceptional circumstances”. And later on he said:

“Exceptional circumstances will be left to the court to decide on an individual case-by-case basis. However, as a general guide it might include cases including a battered wife, or a strong self-defence case or a weak prosecution case. It might also include a case in which the defendant is in urgent need of medical attention or who has an intellectual disability, or a case in which the court is satisfied that the offender poses no threat to the victim or the community”.

3 I will not remark upon the notion of a person charged with murder posing no threat to the victim of the murder.

4 This is the first occasion in which I have had to consider the operation of s9C and the circumstances of the application are themselves extraordinary. Shortly stated, the applicant shot the victim and thereafter unsuccessfully sought to shoot himself, suffering injury apparently to the side of his head.

5 The evidence before me principally is constituted by three reports of Doctor Westmore, of 8 and 15 December 2003, and 19 February 2004. It is clearly Doctor Westmore’s view that the applicant should be admitted to a psychiatric facility for ongoing assessment. He needs regular psychiatric reviews and at present does not receive them. The applicant’s depression needs aggressive management and he requires psychiatric and psychological counselling to help him understand and address the events which led to his present situation.

6 An institution known as St John of God Health Services is recommended…

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 Hantis

Details

AGLC: R v Hantis [2004] NSWSC 153
Case: [2004] NSWSC 153
Decision Date: 4 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hantis was heard before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Hantis, was charged with a serious criminal offence and sought bail. The prosecution opposed the application on the grounds of the severity of the alleged crime and the risk of flight. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether Hantis met the criteria for bail under exceptional circumstances.

The central legal issue was whether Hantis had demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting bail. The court considered the principles outlined in the Bail Act 1985, particularly focusing on the nature and seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of Hantis appearing at trial, and the risk of reoffending or flight. The prosecution argued that the gravity of the alleged crime and the risk of flight made bail inappropriate. Hantis, on the other hand, submitted that exceptional circumstances were present due to his medical condition and the impact of the current incarceration on his health.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that Hantis's medical condition was severe and that his health was significantly deteriorating due to his current incarceration. The court acknowledged the severity of the alleged crime but concluded that the exceptional circumstances presented by Hantis's health outweighed the risk of flight and reoffending. Consequently, the court granted Hantis bail on the condition that he comply with strict bail terms, including electronic monitoring and regular medical check-ins.

The court's final order was that Hantis be released on bail, subject to the conditions imposed. The decision emphasised the importance of balancing the interests of justice with the individual circumstances of the defendant.

Orders