R v Quinn No. Sccrm-03-298 - [2004] SASC 41

R v QUINN
[2004] SASC 41
Bail Review

SULAN J: The applicant, Patrick Quinn, has sought review of a refusal by a magistrate at Christies Beach Magistrates Court, to grant him bail. The applicant is charged with aggravated robbery with an offensive weapon alleged to have occurred on 19 August 2003 at Huntfield Heights.
On 16 and 23 September 2003, the applicant applied for bail with home detention conditions. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the applications. Bail was refused. The applicant appeared again in the Magistrates Court on 28 October 2003. The Director of Public Prosecutions would not agree to the ordering of a home detention bail report. The magistrate refused to order such a report without the consent of the Crown and stated that he was bound by a decision of this Court in R v Duke, in which a judge determined that home detention bail could only be granted upon application or with the consent of the Crown.[1] He concluded that if the Crown opposed bail on home detention conditions, then the bail authority had no discretion to grant bail.I will return to that decision later in these reasons. At the bail review before me, both counsel sought written reasons. It was contended that the magistrate was in error in refusing home detention bail on the basis that he had no discretion to grant bail on home detention if the Crown opposed it.
[1][1999] SASC 431
Crown case
The Crown case is that at about 6.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 August 2003, the applicant entered the Huntfield Heights Pharmacy on Honeypot Road, Huntfield Heights, armed with a knife. He threatened staff before decamping with a quantity of prescription drugs. He was followed by the owner of the pharmacy and other members of the public. The offender was described by various witnesses.
The police attended the scene and conducted a search of the area. An old red coloured Toyota sedan was located nearby. The registration number of this vehicle was WNF-349. It appeared that the rear number plate had been altered. The vehicle is registered in the applicant’s name. While the police were at the scene the applicant walked past. He was stopped. Whilst he was being spoken to, the applicant dropped a plastic bag on the ground, the contents of which were prescription drugs, identical to those taken from the pharmacy. It is the Crown case that the applicant was in possession of three packets of morphine sulphate, a painkiller named Contin, and another unopened packet of painkiller called Kanapol. It was submitted by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the batch numbers of those medications matched the inventory of some of the drugs that had been taken.
The applicant was arrested. A search of the applicant’s home address was conducted, and clothing, shoes and knives were seized.
The Crown opposed bail. It was submitted that there is a real risk the applicant will abscond and re-offend. It was put by the Crown that the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Quinn No. Sccrm-03-298 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] SASC 41
Decision Date: 20 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Quinn, the applicant, Quinn, sought bail from the Supreme Court. The nature of the dispute involved the terms and conditions under which Quinn could be released on bail pending his trial for various criminal charges. The court was tasked with determining whether Quinn met the criteria for bail and, if so, what conditions should be imposed to ensure his appearance in court and to protect the community.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether Quinn was likely to attend his trial if granted bail, the risk he posed to the community, and the measures necessary to mitigate any potential risk. The court also considered the principle of proportionality in setting bail conditions, ensuring they were not excessively punitive but were sufficient to safeguard the community and ensure Quinn's attendance in court.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed assessment of Quinn's criminal history, the nature of the charges, and the potential impact on the community. It was determined that Quinn met the criteria for bail as he had a strong likelihood of attending court, given his ties to the community and the presence of potential guarantors. The court imposed stringent conditions to mitigate any risk, including electronic monitoring, strict residence requirements, and prohibitions on alcohol and drug consumption. The court also set a financial penalty for breach of bail conditions.

The final orders included granting Quinn bail on the specified conditions, requiring him to reside at a particular address, wear an electronic transmitter, abstain from alcohol and non-prescribed drugs, and contact the Home Detention Unit upon release. Additionally, Quinn was required to forfeit a sum of money if he breached any bail conditions and to have guarantors to support his bail terms.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I am satisfied that bail on the following conditions should be granted, and I order, as follows:1.That the applicant will not leave the State for any reason except as allowed under the Bail Act 1985.2(a)That the applicant will reside at 579 Brodie Road, Huntfield Heights, and not absent himself from that address except for the purpose of remunerated employment, any necessary medical or dental treatment, to minimise risk of serious injury or death, whether to himself or some other person, for any other purpose approved by a community corrections officer of the Department for Correctional Services.(b)That the applicant will obey all the lawful instructions of any community corrections officer designated to supervise him on home detention.(c)That the applicant will wear an electronic transmitter and comply with the rules of electronic monitoring.(d)That the applicant will not consume alcohol or any drug which is not medically prescribed or otherwise legally available and then only at the prescribed or recommended dosages and he will submit to any breath test or urine analysis as directed by my community corrections officer.(e)That immediately upon his release, the applicant will travel to the address described above and upon arrival he will contact the Home Detention Unit of the Department for Correctional Services by telephone 8411 7669.(f)That the applicant will forfeit to the Crown the sum of $1000 if he fails to comply with a term or condition of this bail agreement.(g)That, in addition to the above conditions, there be two persons in the sum of $1000 each who agree to act as guarantors in respect of the bail agreement.JUDGMENT CITATIONSLISTED IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE IN JUDGMENT1[1999] SASC 4312 Ibid at para 63 Ibid at para 154 [2003] SASC 4035 (1998) 194 CLR 355 at 381-26 [2003] SASC 403 at pp 7-8

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.