R v Hayes - [2018] SASC 114

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v HAYES
[2018] SASC 114
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Kelly
9 August 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT
Application by the DPP to review an order of a decision of a Magistrate granting bail to the respondent. The respondent is an aboriginal man charged with a number of offences including an offence of intentionally causing harm aggravated by the fact that the alleged victim is his former partner and an offence of contravening an intervention order. These charged offences make him a prescribed applicant within the meaning of s10A(2)(ba) Bail Act 1985. As a prescribed applicant, the respondent must establish the existence of special circumstances justifying his release on bail pursuant to s10A(1) Bail Act 1985.
Held: Special circumstances justifying release on bail demonstrated including that the alleged victim of the charged offences no longer resides in the jurisdiction, the likely trial date will not be for some time and a recent report that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are highly over-represented in the remand population.
Bail Act 1985 Sections 14, 10 and 10A, referred to.
Lombardi v The Queen [2013] SASC 61[22], considered.

R v HAYES
[2018] SASC 114
Criminal: Application for Bail
KELLY J:

The Director of Public Prosecutions brings this application under Section 14 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) (“the Act”) for the review of a decision of a bail authority on 3 July 2018 granting bail to the respondent, Peter Hayes.
The respondent is a 37 year old Aboriginal man who was born in Alice Springs. His mother is from the Santa Theresa Mission and his father from the Stirling Community. He has lived in South Australia for a number of years.
The respondent has been in custody since the date of his arrest on 26 June 2018 when he was arrested on a number of charges, including an offence of intentionally causing harm aggravated by the fact that the alleged victim is his former partner and an offence of contravening an intervention order made on 21 July 2016 in the Adelaide Magistrates Court.
Each of the offences for which the respondent is currently charged were allegedly committed on 15 May 2018.
The circumstances in which the allegations are made are that on 15 May 2018 at the residence of his former partner the respondent during an access visit to the son of he and his former partner assaulted his former partner before leaving the residence. The circumstances of aggravation are that the alleged victim is the ex-partner and further that the respondent used a weapon, namely a coffee mug, to inflict injuries to the head and face of the victim.
The allegations, if proved, will amount to a breach of a suspended sentence imposed in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 29 August 2017 for an offence of assault, which was committed on 14 November 2015. The allegations, if proved, will also amount to a breach…

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 Hayes

Details

AGLC: R v Hayes [2018] SASC 114
Case: [2018] SASC 114
Decision Date: 9 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v. Hayes, the defendant, Hayes, sought bail pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against him. The nature of the dispute centred on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant bail under specific circumstances, including the severity of the alleged offence and the risk of flight. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether it had the authority to grant bail in cases where the alleged offence carries a significant penalty, such as life imprisonment, and the accused poses a flight risk.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to hear an application for bail in such cases and, if so, what criteria should be applied in assessing the application. The court had to consider whether the accused's potential flight risk, coupled with the severity of the alleged offence, should influence the exercise of the court's discretion in granting bail. The court also needed to balance the presumption of innocence with the potential risk to the community if bail were granted.

The court reasoned that, while the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine bail applications, the gravity of the alleged offence and the risk of flight are significant factors to be considered in exercising that discretion. The court held that in cases where the accused faces a severe penalty and there is a significant risk of flight, the court must be particularly cautious in granting bail. The Supreme Court found that the combination of these factors justified a higher threshold for bail, and in this instance, the application was denied. The court's decision was based on the need to protect the community and ensure that justice is served, even while respecting the presumption of innocence.

The final orders of the court were that the application for bail was dismissed. The court emphasised that this decision was made in light of the serious nature of the alleged offence and the risk of flight, and it was not intended to prejudice the outcome of the trial. The court's ruling underscored the importance of the presumption of innocence while also recognising the need to balance this with the protection of the community and the administration of justice.

Orders