R v Pleterski - [2016] NSWCCA 14

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pleterski [2016] NSWCCA 14
Hearing dates: 5 February 2015
Date of orders: 05 February 2015
Decision date: 15 February 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Beech-Jones J at [1]
Wilson J at [1]
Decision:
The Crown’s detention application should be granted. The respondent’s bail is revoked and he is to be returned to custody.

Catchwords: BAIL – detention application made by Crown – additional information becoming available after successful bail application – Crown case significantly strengthened – strong Crown case – unacceptable risk to victim and witnesses established – unacceptable risk not able to be sufficiently mitigated by bail conditions – detention application granted and bail revoked.
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 – s 49, s 50
Crimes Act 1900 ss 33B(1), 47, 61, 195(1)(b)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 - s 13(1)
Mental Health Act 2007
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 – s 55(1)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Applicant
Milan Darko Pleterski - Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr E Balodis – Applicant Crown
Respondent in Person
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Applicant Crown
Respondent in Person

File Number(s): 2015/341915
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Bail

Date of Decision:

25 January 2016

Before:

Davies J

File Number(s):

2015/341915

Judgment

THE COURT:

Background to this application

On 27 October 2015 the respondent was arrested and charged with the following offences:

Common assault: s 61 Crimes Act 1900.
Throw explosive substance with intent to do grievous bodily harm: s 47 Crimes Act.
Use offensive weapon with intent to intimidate: s 33B(1)(a) Crimes Act.
Stalk/intimidate with intent to cause fear: s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
Damage property by fire: s 195(1)(b) Crimes Act.

On 25 January 2016 the respondent made a release application before Davies J pursuant to s 49 of the Bail Act 2013 (the Act). The respondent was not represented on that application.
Bail was granted, subject to the following conditions:

To be of good behaviour;

To report to Balmain Police Station between 8am and 6pm every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday;

To live at xxxx Henry Street, Leichhardt NSW;

Not to go within 1km of Forestville for any reason;

Not to associate or communicate by any means (except through his lawyer) with TS, TW and Z.

On 29 January 2016 the Crown made a detention application pursuant to s 50 of the Act. The papers relating to the application were served on the respondent on Wednesday, 3 February 2016.
The application was heard on 5 February 2016. After the completion of submissions the Court made orders granting the application and revoking the respondent’s bail. The Court stated that reasons would be provided at a later date. This judgment constitutes those reasons.

Factual background

The following narrative, which is disputed by the respondent in a number of respects, sets out the Crown case against him. There…

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 Pleterski

Details

AGLC: R v Pleterski [2016] NSWCCA 14
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 14
Decision Date: 15 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pleterski involved the defendant, Pleterski, who had previously been granted bail. The Crown subsequently applied to the court for his detention, citing the emergence of additional information that had significantly strengthened their case against him. The court was required to determine whether Pleterski should continue to be detained in custody or if bail should be reinstated. The primary issue before the court was whether the unacceptable risk to the victim and potential witnesses could be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of appropriate bail conditions.

The court examined the strength of the Crown’s case and the nature of the risk posed by Pleterski. It was noted that the new information significantly strengthened the Crown’s position and that the risk to the victim and witnesses was substantial. The court also considered whether any bail conditions could effectively manage the risk posed by Pleterski. Ultimately, the court found that the unacceptable risk could not be sufficiently mitigated by any bail conditions, and therefore, the application for detention was successful. The court revoked Pleterski’s bail and ordered his detention until the conclusion of the trial.

In light of the above, the court granted the Crown’s application for detention and revoked Pleterski’s bail. The decision was based on the significant strengthening of the Crown’s case, the substantial risk to the victim and witnesses, and the inability to sufficiently mitigate this risk through bail conditions. The final orders of the court were that Pleterski would remain in detention pending the outcome of his trial.

Orders