R v MOORE

[2017] SASC 134

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Accordingly I dismiss the application.