R v PETERS - [2020] SASC 191

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
R v PETERS
[2020] SASC 191
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Livesey (ex tempore)
2 October 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
The respondent was arrested and charged with contravening on a second or subsequent occasion a term of an intervention order contrary to s 31(2aa)(a) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA). Bail was applied for and granted in the Magistrates Court. Pursuant to s 14 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) (“the Act”) the Director of Public Prosecutions made an application in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the order of the Magistrate granting the respondent bail. The respondent concedes that he is a “prescribed applicant” within the meaning of s 10(2)(ba) of the Act, but seeks bail on strict home detention conditions.
Held:
1. The respondent has not established "special circumstances" and there is a need to protect the victim of a number of assaults.
2. The respondent’s application for bail is dismissed.
3. The Director’s application for review of bail is allowed. Bail is revoked.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 10A, s 14; Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 31, referred to.
Coulthard v The Queen [2020] SASC 173; R v Hayes [2018] SASC 114; R v Lombardi (2013) 115 SASR 577; R v Webb [2019] SASC 8, considered.

R v PETERS
[2020] SASC 191
Criminal: Application
LIVESEY J:
Introduction

This is an application for review of bail by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s 14(2)(a) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) (the Act) following the grant of bail without strict home detention conditions on 30 September 2020.
This morning, the respondent to the Director’s application seeks bail on strict home detention conditions.
It is submitted on behalf of the Director that by reason of the seriousness of the offending, the need for protection of the victim and the respondent’s criminal antecedents, bail should have been refused. It is also submitted and conceded that the respondent is a “prescribed applicant” within s 10A(2)(ba) of the Act.
The subject alleged offending
By Information dated 30 September 2020, the respondent is charged with having on 26 September 2020 contravened on a second or subsequent occasion a term of an intervention order contrary to s 31(2aa)(a) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA).
The prosecution case is that on Saturday, 26 September 2020 at around 10 pm the respondent approached a woman, the niece of the protected person, when she was at a service station. The niece was sitting in the driver’s seat of her car when the respondent approached the driver’s window which was open. It is alleged that the respondent then said to the niece: “I have a video of [the protected person] kissing another bloke and she doesn’t know I have it. I’m going to stab her five times when…

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 PETERS

Details

AGLC: R v PETERS [2020] SASC 191
Case: [2020] SASC 191
Decision Date: 2 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Peters, the matter was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Peters, was facing charges of drug trafficking and possession of a firearm. The prosecution sought to revoke and vary the bail conditions that had previously been imposed. The dispute centred on whether the new evidence presented by the prosecution warranted a stricter set of bail conditions.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence provided by the prosecution was sufficient to justify the revocation and variation of the existing bail conditions. The legal issues encompassed the standard of proof necessary for such a decision, the impact of the new evidence on the risk factors associated with the defendant's release, and the principles of fairness in the bail process. The court needed to balance the rights of the defendant with the interests of the community in ensuring public safety.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales carefully considered the new evidence and concluded that it did indeed warrant stricter bail conditions. The court found that the evidence provided a significant increase in the risk factors associated with the defendant's release, particularly in relation to the potential for reoffending. The court determined that the defendant's continued release posed a substantial risk to the community. The court exercised its discretion to revoke and vary the bail conditions, imposing more stringent measures to mitigate the identified risks.

The final orders of the court included the revocation of the existing bail conditions and the imposition of new conditions that required the defendant to reside at a specified address, report to a police station regularly, and refrain from using any electronic communication devices without prior authorisation. The court also ordered that the defendant be electronically monitored at all times. These orders were designed to ensure that the defendant could not reoffend while on bail and to maintain the safety of the community.

Orders