R v Liristis - [2018] NSWSC 996

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Liristis [2018] NSWSC 996
Hearing dates: 28 June 2018
Date of orders: 28 June 2018
Decision date: 28 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
Bail refused.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – bail – fourth application to Supreme Court – applicant in custody from 2015 bail refused – sexual intercourse and attempted sexual intercourse without consent – three independent complainants – whether s 74(3) satisfied – need for applicant to show cause – strength of crown case – whether applicant needed to be released to assist in de-encrypting hard drives from recording devices – whether unacceptable risks of interfering with witnesses and commission of further serious offences – bail refused

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Liristis [2018] NSWCA 143
JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
Liristis v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2015] NSWSC 1258
Liristis v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 39
R v Tony Liristis [2016] NSWSC 380

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Antonio Liristis (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Norrie (Applicant)
C Evans (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ross Hill & Associates (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/77609

Judgment

On 26 June 2014 the applicant was arrested and charged with the following offences:

(1) Three offences of sexual intercourse without consent in 2008 with the victim known as RG contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);

(2) One offence of attempted sexual intercourse without consent in 2013 with the victim known as SG contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act;

(3) One offence of sexual intercourse without consent in 2013 with the victim known as AD contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act; and

(4) Three offences of knowingly using a listening device to record a private conversation in 2013 contrary to s 7(1)(b) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW).

The applicant was taken into custody on 27 June 2014 but he served the non-parole period of an existing sentence of imprisonment until 26 September 2015. He has been in custody with respect to the offences charged since that time.
The matters have been fixed for trial on 31 August 2015, 27 June 2016, 9 October 2017, 6 November 2017 and 5 February 2018. All of those trial dates have been vacated on defence applications. The trial of the matters charged has now been fixed for 30 July 2018 in the District Court.
On 20 November 2014 the applicant made a bail application in this Court but it was refused on that day by Blackmore AJ.
On 24 August 2015 the applicant again applied for bail before R A Hulme J. His Honour refused bail: Liristis v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2015] NSWSC 1258.
On 24 March 2016 the applicant made a further bail application before Garling J. Bail…

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 Liristis

Details

AGLC: R v Liristis [2018] NSWSC 996
Case: [2018] NSWSC 996
Decision Date: 28 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Liristis was appealing against a decision by the County Court to refuse him bail. The applicant had been in custody since 2015 and had made three previous applications for bail, all of which had been refused. He was charged with various sexual offences against three independent complainants. The applicant sought bail to assist in decrypting hard drives from recording devices. The Crown opposed bail, citing the strength of the case against the applicant and concerns about potential witness interference and the risk of further offending. The court had to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria in s 74(3) of the relevant legislation and whether there were unacceptable risks that the applicant would interfere with witnesses or commit further serious offences.

The court considered whether the applicant had demonstrated cause for his release and whether the strength of the Crown case warranted the applicant remaining in custody. It also examined the potential risks of releasing the applicant, including the possibility of witness interference and further offending. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated cause for his release as required by s 74(3) of the relevant legislation. The strength of the evidence against him and the risk of witness interference and further offending were significant factors in the court's decision. The court held that the applicant had not shown that his release would assist in decrypting the hard drives to a degree that would significantly benefit his case.

The court concluded that the risks associated with releasing the applicant outweighed any potential benefit from his release. The applicant's previous history of making false statements and the nature of the charges against him indicated a high risk of reoffending and witness interference. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that his release would result in a just outcome. Accordingly, the application for bail was refused.

Orders