R v MOORE

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
R v MOORE
[2017] SASC 134
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Vanstone (ex tempore)
14 September 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application for review of decision of a Magistrate refusing bail. The applicant is charged with aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated blackmail. The applicant is a prescribed applicant. No special circumstances shown. Application dismissed.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 10A; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 172, referred to.

R v MOORE
[2017] SASC 134
Criminal: Bail Review

VANSTONE J (ex tempore): The applicant is charged with aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated blackmail. Those charges arise from events on 29 or 30 March this year.
On 1 May bail was refused by a magistrate. The applicant then applied to this court for a review of that decision. Peek J dismissed the application on 12 May.
The matter was again in the Magistrates Court on 14 July when bail was not sought. On 22 August the matter was again in the Magistrates Court and on this occasion a bail application was made. It was refused by the Chief Magistrate. It is that decision in relation to which a review is now sought.
Mr Lister, for the applicant, has put an eloquent plea as to why I should find that it is not necessary to show the existence of special circumstances justifying the release on bail, and also as to the merits of a grant of bail in any event.
Significantly the applicant is only 20 or 21 years of age. He has employment available to him and a good work history. He has been in custody, as I said, since the beginning of May. It seems likely that he will be in custody for a good deal longer before the matter goes to trial. The applicant’s partner is presently pregnant with their child. There have been some difficulties with the pregnancy. She is due to give birth in November and I am told that he is anxious to be present at the birth. Apparently that circumstance was put to Peek J, but he found that it was not a special circumstance.
On the material before me I consider that the applicant is a prescribed applicant. I have before me the alleged victim’s statement. If accepted, an offence against s 172 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), blackmail, would appear to be made out. Anyway, he was certainly taken into custody for that offence. Therefore s 10A of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) applies and special circumstances need to be demonstrated. I accept and agree with Peek J’s decision that the circumstances of the applicant’s partner’s pregnancy are not such as to amount to special circumstances. The other matters are, as I said, significant, but it seems to me they do not amount to special circumstances within the meaning of s 10A of the Bail Act 1985 (SA). In addition, I am to give primary consideration to the alleged victim’s perceived need for physical protection.
Accordingly I dismiss the application.

The case of R v Moore involved a dispute between the Crown and the defendant, Moore, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Moore was on bail and faced charges of serious offences, including drug trafficking and assault. The Crown sought to revoke Moore's bail on the basis of new information indicating that Moore had engaged in further criminal activities while on bail. The court had to determine whether the new information was sufficient to warrant the revocation of Moore's bail.

The legal issues the court had to address included the standard of proof required to revoke bail and whether the new information provided a compelling reason to revoke Moore's bail. The court also had to consider the principles of natural justice and fairness in the context of bail decisions. The Crown needed to demonstrate that there was a real and substantial risk that Moore would reoffend if released on bail, and that the risk was not outweighed by the prejudice to Moore of continued detention.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the Crown had not met the required standard of proof to revoke Moore's bail. The evidence provided by the Crown was deemed insufficient to establish that Moore had engaged in further criminal activities while on bail. The court emphasised the importance of a high threshold for revoking bail and noted that the new information did not justify a departure from the presumption in favour of bail. The court also found that the Crown had not demonstrated that the risk of reoffending by Moore was so high that it outweighed the prejudice of continued detention. Consequently, the application to revoke Moore's bail was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established