R v PJM - [2025] SASC 1

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

R v PJM
[2025] SASC 1
Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice Kimber
14 January 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - BEFORE TRIAL
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - BEFORE TRIAL - SERIOUS AND ORGANISED CRIME SUSPECTS
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - OTHER MATTERS
This is an application for bail.
The applicant is charged in the Supreme Court with conspiracy to cause serious harm and participation in a criminal organisation. The applicant has been in custody with respect to those allegations since 6 June 2021. On the prosecution case, the applicant was closely involved in efforts made by a criminal organisation to cause serious harm to the alleged victim by shooting him. On the prosecution case, among other things, the applicant received, and was prepared to use a firearm to further the conspiracy. The trial of the matter in the Supreme Court is listed to commence in February 2026.
The applicant is also charged with arson in separate proceedings before the District Court. That trial is listed to commence in July 2025. On the prosecution case, that arson also involved the applicant being prepared to assist a criminal organisation. The applicant does not have bail in that matter and submits that there is a risk that matter may not proceed as listed.
The applicant seeks home detention bail in the matter before the Supreme Court. The defendant contends, among other things, that he has a presumption of innocence, a presumption of bail and that home detention bail is appropriate as, if bail is not granted, he will be in custody for more than four and a half years before his trial in the Supreme Court.
Held, per Kimber J:
1.Given the gravity of the alleged offences and the likelihood of the applicant offending again if released on bail, bail is refused.

Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 10(1); Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 44(2); Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth); Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Act 2024 (Cth), referred to.
R v Slavin-Molloy [2021] SASC 134, applied.
R v Bol [2017] SASFC 148, distinguished.
Questions of Law (Nos. 1 and 2 of 2023) [2024] SASCA 82, considered.

R v PJM
[2025] SASC 1
Criminal: Application
KIMBER J:

These are my reasons for refusing to grant bail to the applicant on the file in this Court.
Background
In this Court, the applicant is charged with conspiracy to cause serious harm and participation in a criminal organisation. Both alleged offences arise out of the same circumstances. The trial of that matter is listed to commence in February 2026.
The application before me is made in the context of the applicant also having a matter listed for trial in the District Court. On that file, the applicant is charged with arson and the trial is listed to commence in July 2025. The applicant does not have bail in that matter.
The applicant…

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 PJM

Details

AGLC: R v PJM [2025] SASC 1
Case: [2025] SASC 1
Decision Date: 14 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, PJM, was before the Supreme Court of South Australia, charged with conspiracy to cause serious harm and participation in a criminal organisation. The trial for these offences was scheduled to commence in February 2026. Concurrently, PJM faced a separate trial in the District Court for arson, scheduled for July 2025. PJM had been in custody since 6 June 2021 on the Supreme Court file and was seeking bail on home detention, to live with his father who was prepared to provide a $20,000 surety and an additional $100,000 at risk of forfeiture if PJM breached bail conditions.

The court was required to decide whether PJM should be granted bail before trial, considering the presumption of bail and the risk of reoffending. The key issues included the seriousness of the alleged offences, the risk posed by PJM to the community, and the disincentives provided by the proposed bail conditions. The court had to weigh these factors against the presumption of bail and the time PJM had already spent in custody without trial.

The court concluded that there was a real risk that PJM would engage in serious criminal activity if released on bail, given the nature of the alleged offences and his involvement with an organised criminal group. The court found that the risk of reoffending, even with stringent bail conditions, outweighed the presumption of bail and the other factors in favour of release. Consequently, the court refused to grant bail, citing the gravity of the alleged offences and the potential risk to the community.

The court's final orders were to maintain PJM in custody pending the commencement of the trials in July 2025 and February 2026, respectively.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

These are my reasons for refusing to grant bail to the applicant on the file in this Court. Background In this Court, the applicant is charged with conspiracy to cause serious harm and participation in a criminal organisation. Both alleged offences arise out of the same circumstances. The trial of that matter is listed to commence in February 2026. The application before me is made in the context of the applicant also having a matter listed for trial in the District Court. On that file, the applicant is charged with arson and the trial is listed to commence in July 2025. The applicant does not have bail in that matter. The applicant has a presumption of innocence and a presumption of bail. He has been in custody on the Supreme Court file since 6 June 2021. He was charged with the alleged arson while on remand with respect to the allegations the subject of the Supreme Court file. The applicant is in his early thirties. His only offence is carrying an offensive weapon, committed in August 2018. That matter was dealt with without conviction and by placing the applicant on a bond. I do not regard that as a matter of any relevance to the application before me. The applicant’s current remand is the first time that he has been in custody. He seeks bail on home detention and to live with his father. The address has been assessed as suitable for electronic monitoring. The applicant’s father is retired and prepared to lodge a $20,000 surety with the Court and place himself at risk of forfeiting an additional amount of $100,000 in the event that the applicant breaches his bail. The applicant submits that home detention bail is appropriate given the presumption of bail; the disincentive that will exist to breach bail arising from the risk of his father losing a substantial sum; that his father will be living with the applicant and will have an incentive to supervise him and to avoid any risk of him losing that substantial sum; the stringent nature of home detention bail; and the delay since he was remanded in custody on 6 June 2021. As set out above, the applicant’s first trial is not listed until July 2025. By that trial date, he will have been in custody for more than four years. The applicant submits that should he be convicted of the arson, his sentence might be backdated to when he was first taken into custody, notwithstanding that he was not charged with the arson until a later date. The applicant submitted that on the assumption that his trial proceeds in July 2025, by the date of that trial, he may have served his non‑parole period. While I am prepared to assume that, in the event the applicant falls to be sentenced for the arson, there might be some risk of him having served his non‑parole period, that assumption should not be taken to reflect a concluded view. Further, no assumption made for the purpose of this application could bind the sentencing Judge. Given the allegations, if the applicant falls to be sentenced for the arson, it is likely to be treated as a serious offence of its type given what appears to be evidence of some planning and it being done at the request of an organised criminal group.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In addition, given the assumptions earlier identified, there is good reason to believe that, over a period of more than a year, the applicant was closely associated with an organised criminal group which he knew was prepared to commit arson and to seriously harm a person through the co‑ordinated efforts of several people. On the prosecution case, the applicant was prepared to receive, and was trusted by the Comancheros with, a firearm and ammunition. On the prosecution case, the applicant demonstrated a preparedness to use the firearm against the alleged target of the conspiracy and for the purpose of advancing the aims of a criminal group. Conclusion In the circumstances, if released on home detention bail, I am satisfied that there is a real risk of the applicant engaging in serious criminal activity. Given the activities in which the applicant is alleged to have been engaged over a period of about a year, there is a real risk that the nature of that criminal activity may place members of the community at risk. If the communications are any guide, the applicant was asserting some experience with materials that could be used to damage property by fire; was asserting a willingness to possess, and use, a firearm; and was prepared to provide vehicles and other items which he expected would be used in the commission of serious and organised criminal activity. Further, the alleged offences the subject of the Supreme Court file can be characterised as particularly serious. On the prosecution case, the applicant was prepared to engage in a conspiracy to cause serious harm using a firearm and to advance the goals of a senior member(s) of an organised criminal group. In the circumstances, notwithstanding the time that the applicant will be in custody without trial and the other matters which weigh in favour of the application, I decline to grant bail because of the gravity of the alleged offences and the risk that the applicant will offend again even if subject to home detention bail with the other conditions suggested.[5][5] Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 10(1)(a) and (b)(i).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.