R v Pasikala - [2018] NSWSC 1458

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pasikala [2018] NSWSC 1458
Hearing dates: 25 September 2018
Date of orders: 27 September 2018
Decision date: 27 September 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Grant bail, subject to the following conditions:
(1)    Applicant is to be of good behaviour.
(2)    Applicant is to reside at xx xxxx, Mount Druitt.
(3)    Applicant is to report to Mount Druitt police station daily between the hours of 6am and 8pm.
(4)    Applicant is to appear at Newtown Local Court, by audio visual link if available, on 2 October 2018 and thereafter as required.
(5)    Applicant is not to drink alcohol or enter premises where alcohol is sold.
(6)    Applicant is not to take any illegal or prescription drugs other than a drug that has been prescribed for him by a medical practitioner.
(7)    Applicant is not to be absent at any time from the premises at which he is required to live otherwise than for the purposes of travelling to or from a place of employment with Marques Group Pty Ltd or attending court or reporting to police in accordance with condition (3) above.
(8)    Applicant is not to have any contact directly or indirectly, except through his lawyers, with any person who the prosecution has told him is or may be a witness for the prosecution.
(9)    Applicant must not go to within 1km of the suburb of Petersham.
Catchwords: BAIL – release application – where concern that the applicant will fail to appear, pose a risk to the victim or commit a further offence – where applicant suffers from psychiatric conditions – where applicant currently serving a fixed term sentence – where the grant of bail may result in the applicant being given a minimum security classification and therefore allow him to access programs within the Corrective Services system to assist with his psychiatric conditions
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 17
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Brooks [2015] NSWCCA 190
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tony Mawad [2015] NSWCCA 227
JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
Lin v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2017] NSWSC 312
Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCCA 314
R v Ebrahimi [2015] NSWSC 335
R v Fallon (a pseudonym) [2017] NSWSC 1796
R v Fesus [2014] NSWSC 770
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Taniella Pasikala (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Macquarie Lawyers (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/245190
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Taniella Pasikala applies for bail. He has been in custody bail refused since the date of his arrest on 31 July 2018. He is charged with taking and detaining a person while in company to obtain an advantage and with demanding property by force in company with intent to steal. His matters are next before the Newtown Local Court on 2 October 2018 for mention. No plea has…

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 Pasikala

Details

AGLC: R v Pasikala [2018] NSWSC 1458
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1458
Decision Date: 27 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pasikala involved the defendant, Pasikala, who applied for bail while serving a fixed term sentence. The primary concern was whether Pasikala would fail to appear in court, pose a risk to the victim, or commit further offences. Additionally, Pasikala suffered from psychiatric conditions, which were considered in the context of his bail application. The court had to weigh these factors against the potential benefits of granting bail, including the possibility of Pasikala receiving a minimum security classification within the Corrective Services system, thereby allowing him access to programs designed to assist with his psychiatric conditions.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the standard criteria for bail under the Bail Act, the risk assessment concerning Pasikala's potential non-compliance with bail conditions, and the impact of his psychiatric conditions on his likelihood of reoffending. Furthermore, the court had to consider the potential benefits of granting bail, specifically the opportunity for Pasikala to engage with therapeutic programs that could improve his mental health and reduce the risk of reoffending.

The court carefully evaluated Pasikala's psychiatric history, the nature of his current sentence, and the benefits of granting bail in terms of access to supportive programs. The court concluded that, despite the concerns about potential non-compliance and risk to the victim, the benefits of granting bail outweighed these risks. The court determined that the opportunity for Pasikala to engage with therapeutic programs could significantly improve his mental health and reduce the risk of reoffending, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

The court ordered that Pasikala be released on bail under strict conditions, including electronic monitoring and regular check-ins with a mental health professional. The court emphasised the importance of Pasikala's engagement with the provided therapeutic programs to address his psychiatric conditions effectively.

Orders