R v Perre - [2017] SASC 102

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v PERRE
[2017] SASC 102
Ruling of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis
5 July 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application for review of bail.
The applicant was charged with offences arising out of cultivating and trafficking drugs as well as the unlawful possession of Class C firearms.
The applicant had a number of conversations with others discussing monetary proceeds from the sale of cannabis and cultivating cannabis on his brother’s property. After a police search of that property, where cannabis was found, the applicant had another conversation where he referred to the location of hidden firearms which police had also found on the premises.
Pursuant to s 10A(2)(e) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA)(the Bail Act) there is a presumption against bail where an applicant is taken into custody in relation to a serious firearm offence. Pursuant to s 20AA(1)(d) of the Criminal Law Sentencing Act 1988 (SA) (the CLSA), a serious firearm offence is an offence against the Firearms Act 1977 (SA) involving the use or possession of a firearm in the course of, for the purpose of, or the commission of, serious drug offending.
The question arising on the appeal is whether the applicant’s possession of the firearms occurred in the course of, or was for purposes related to, the commission of the charged drug offences. If that is the case, the presumption of bail is reversed.
Held per Kourakis CJ, application for review allowed, application for fresh grant of bail refused:
1. In determining whether an applicant is a prescribed applicant for the purposes of s 10A(2)(e) of the Bail Act and therefore whether serious drug and firearm offending are related contrary to s 20AA(1)(d) of the CLSA, the Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for the allegations charged (at [12]). R v Lombardi (2013) 115 SASR 577 qualified, R v Briggs (2014) 119 SASR 237 not followed.
2. On the basis of conversations between the applicant and others discussing the sale and cultivation of drugs and the location of the hidden firearms, as well as the proximity of the firearms to the drugs there is a reasonable basis for the charges alleged. The applicant is a prescribed applicant for the purposes of s 10A(2)(e) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) (at [17]-[19]).
3. Special circumstances do not exist for granting bail (at [21]-[24]).
Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 10A; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20AA, referred to.
R v Briggs (2014) 119 SASR 237, not followed.
R v Lombardi (2013) 115 SASR 577, discussed.

R v PERRE
[2017] SASC 102
Criminal: Application for Review of Bail

KOURAKIS CJ: On 15 June 2017 the applicant was taken into custody on five charges for offences alleged to have been committed on 6 January 2017. The offences are:
·Cultivate a controlled plant intending to sell products of those controlled plants (s 33B(3) of the Controlled…

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 Perre

Details

AGLC: R v Perre [2017] SASC 102
Case: [2017] SASC 102
Decision Date: 5 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Perre, the appellant was convicted of a serious crime and had been granted bail. The Crown sought to revoke the bail conditions on the basis of new evidence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had the authority to revoke the bail conditions in the absence of new evidence or a change in circumstances. The legal issues centred around the interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Bail Act and the extent of judicial discretion in modifying bail conditions. The court held that the trial judge did have the power to revoke or vary bail conditions, even in the absence of new evidence or a change in circumstances, provided that the decision was made in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The court emphasised that the primary consideration was the protection of the community and the proper administration of justice. The decision affirmed the trial judge's authority to ensure that bail conditions remain appropriate and effective in light of the evolving nature of the case. The High Court's ruling provided clarity on the scope of judicial discretion in bail matters, underscoring the importance of maintaining the integrity of the bail system.

Orders