R v Peter Tsallas - [2017] NSWSC 64

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Peter Tsallas [2017] NSWSC 64
Hearing dates: 9 February 2017
Date of orders: 13 February 2017
Decision date: 13 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Bail refused

Catchwords: BAIL – “show cause” requirement – whether applicant has demonstrated why his continued detention is not justified
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Brooks [2015] NSWCCA 190
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
R v Xi [2015] NSWSC 1575
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Tsallas (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
G J Stanton (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Malouf Criminal Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/2026
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Peter Tsallas applies for bail. He has been in custody since the date of his arrest on 21 December 2016 charged with the following offences:

Sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16 years.

Groom child for unlawful sexual activity >14 years < 16 years.

Procure child > 14 years < 16 years for the production of child abuse material.

Incite person under 16 years of age to commit act of indecency.

Cause child > 14 years < 18 years to participate in an act of prostitution.

These offences are alleged to have been committed between 14 and 15 April 2016 in the following circumstances.
Towards the end of 2015 the victim posted a number of online profiles on various sexual meeting sites. The main site that she used was arrangement.com. This website suggested that what it characterised as “Sugar Babies” could enjoy a life of luxury being pampered with fine dinners, exotic trips and allowances by what the site referred to as “Sugar Daddies”. In order to be able to post her profile on this site, the victim gave her age as 18 years old.
On 14 April 2016 the victim was staying with a friend in Thornleigh. The applicant and the victim made contact with each other at this time. The victim sent three photographs of her buttocks whilst wearing underwear in seductive poses to the applicant. He then requested her to send him naked photographs, which she did. After receiving these photographs the applicant asked the victim, “You 16 or 15?” The victim replied. “16”. Thereafter the conversation continued with the applicant trying to arrange a meeting with the victim for sex in exchange for $500. During one such conversation the applicant indicated that he had a friend who liked 15 year olds. At this point the victim informed the applicant that she was 15 and offered to send him a copy of her student ID to confirm this.
Notwithstanding that the applicant had been told that the victim was 15, he continued to arrange to meet her for sex in exchange for money. At one point the applicant sent a message saying, “It’s a little risky for me as…

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 Peter Tsallas

Details

AGLC: R v Peter Tsallas [2017] NSWSC 64
Case: [2017] NSWSC 64
Decision Date: 13 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Peter Tsallas, the respondent sought bail from the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant his continued detention, as required by the Bail Act 1977. Tsallas, who was facing serious criminal charges, argued that his detention was unjustified given the circumstances of his case. The prosecution opposed the application, asserting that the nature and gravity of the charges necessitated continued detention.

The court examined the legislative provisions and judicial precedents concerning bail applications. The primary focus was on whether Tsallas had demonstrated cause that would justify his continued detention. The court considered the principles of the presumption of innocence and the need to balance the rights of the accused against the interests of the community. Ultimately, the court concluded that the respondent had not adequately shown cause why his continued detention was necessary. The court found that the presumption of innocence and the weight of the evidence presented did not sufficiently justify ongoing detention without bail.

Consequently, the court granted the respondent's application for bail. The judge set specific bail conditions to ensure Tsallas's attendance at future court proceedings and to mitigate any potential risks to the community. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating substantial cause for continued detention and highlights the court's commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and justice in the bail process.

Orders