R v O'Donnell No. Sccrm-00-210 - [2000] SASC 413

R v SHAUN JASON O'DONNELL

[2000] SASC 413

Criminal (Ex tempore)

1................ LANDER J....... This is an application for bail by an accused person, who has been arraigned in this Court on a charge of murder, to which he has pleaded not guilty.

It is the Crown case that the applicant murdered Paul Francis Stewart on 30 June 2000.
The Crown case is that, in the early hours of 30 June 2000, there was an altercation at Sharkeys Pool Hall, near Reynella. The altercation spilled out into the car park of an adjacent Christian Centre. A fight developed between two men in that car park. Later, other men became involved. One man was struck over the head with a car lock. One of two men, who was wielding a car lock, was set upon by a number of persons, including the applicant. The applicant stabbed the deceased three times in the back, and the deceased died of his wounds very shortly thereafter. The Crown case is that the deceased died of a stab wound to the back, penetrating the left chest. It is the Crown case that the applicant left the scene with a woman friend. He later gave the knife to a third person to dispose of, and the knife was disposed of.
On the Crown case, and, indeed, on the defence case, alcohol was involved.
The applicant was interviewed on 1 July 2000, and was arrested for murder. He told the police that he stabbed the deceased after the deceased had struck his friend over the head with a club lock, and his friend had apparently lost consciousness. He told the police that he did not mean to kill the man, he was scared, and he did not want to get hit with the pole, himself.
I can assume, I think, at this stage, that, at the trial, the applicant will require the Crown to negative the defence of self-defence.
The applicant is aged 19 years. He resides with his parents at 47 Sherebrooke Boulevard, at Woodcroft.
He applied for, and was granted bail by a Magistrate on 10 July 2000, on the condition that he reside at home and submit to home detention conditions.
It was also a condition of the bail agreement that he report to the Christies Beach Police Station three days each week, in the company of one of two guarantors, who were also required under the bail agreement.
There was a further condition that he not approach some witnesses.
He remained on bail until the committal proceedings on 29 August 2000, when he was committed to this Court. At that stage, no application for bail was made.
There is a presumption that a person who has been charged with, but not convicted of, an offence should be granted bail, unless the presumption is displaced for any of the reasons in s 10 of the Bail Act 1985.
There is no suggestion, in this case, that there is any likelihood that the applicant would,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v O'Donnell No. Sccrm-00-210 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] SASC 413
Decision Date: 23 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Shaun Jason O'Donnell, the defendant is charged with the murder of Paul Francis Stewart. Shaun Jason O'Donnell pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder. The Crown alleges that the defendant murdered the deceased during an altercation that began at Sharkeys Pool Hall and ended in the car park of a nearby Christian Centre. According to the Crown's case, the defendant stabbed the deceased three times in the back, leading to his death. The defendant claims that he acted in self-defence, fearing for his own safety. The defendant was initially granted bail by a Magistrate but was later committed to the Supreme Court of South Australia. The defendant's application for bail to the Supreme Court was denied.

The legal issue before the court was whether the defendant should be granted bail despite being charged with murder. The court considered whether the presumption in favour of bail could be rebutted due to the gravity of the offence, the risk of absconding, or the defendant's previous breaches of bail conditions. The court examined the defendant's previous breaches of home detention conditions and his failure to comply with the bail agreement. The court also considered the opinion of the Department of Correctional Services and the Home Detention report, which indicated that the defendant was not a suitable candidate for home detention.

The court found that the defendant's previous breaches of bail conditions could not be excused merely by his youth or immaturity. The court concluded that the defendant had deliberately breached the conditions of his bail agreement, which was granted for the most serious offence known to the law in South Australia. The court accepted that the defendant was not a suitable candidate for bail on the condition of home detention and, therefore, was not a suitable candidate for bail on any other conditions. The application for bail was refused.

The court's final order was that the application for bail be refused. The defendant remained in custody awaiting trial for the charge of murder.

Orders