R v Ravesi - [2016] SASC 128

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v RAVESI
[2016] SASC 128
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Nicholson
11 August 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application by an accused, a prescribed applicant, to review an order of a Magistrate refusing simple bail. Application for review brought on the new basis that bail on home detention conditions is warranted.
Held: application for review allowed. The application for bail is governed by section 10A of the Bail Act 1985 (SA). However, special circumstances established and bail on home detention conditions granted.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 10, s 10A, referred to.
R v Lombardi [2013] SASC 61, considered.

R v RAVESI
[2016] SASC 128
Criminal: Bail review
NICHOLSON J.

On Thursday 4 August 2016, I heard an application by Mr Paul Anthony Ravesi for the review of a decision by a Magistrate to refuse simple bail. For the purpose of the review, the applicant modified his application and now seeks bail on home detention terms. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposes the grant of bail on any terms. The principle bases for the opposition are: that the applicant is a prescribed applicant pursuant to section 10A of the Bail Act 1985 such that there is a presumption against bail in the absence of “special circumstances”; the risk of re-offending; and the perceived need by the alleged victim of a number of the charged offences for protection.
The applicant has been charged with a number of offences said to have been committed between 5 April 2016 and 8 May 2016. The various charges allege, inter alia, assault by words in an offensive email, acts of property damage, physical assault, carrying an offensive weapon, threaten to kill, an act likely to endanger life, breach of bail and two contraventions of an intervention order (one by the sending of text messages and one by approaching and assaulting the protected person). The alleged offending arises out of a very difficult relationship that the applicant has with his half-brother, the alleged victim of most of the offences charged.
At the hearing of the review I heard from the applicant, the applicant’s long term general practitioner (who gave sworn evidence) and from counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The applicant and the alleged victim share the same mother but have different fathers. There is no doubt that their relationship has seriously broken down, perhaps irretrievably. Further, it would seem that the mother and the mother’s daughter (the applicant’s half-sister) have sided with the alleged victim. The genesis of this relationship breakdown is complex and goes back over a substantial period of time. According to the applicant, his half-brother and half-sister have taken advantage of their mother and taken control of her financial affairs for their own benefit.
The charges that have been brought against the applicant are denied. He maintains that they are based on a false factual foundation. According to the applicant, it…

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 Ravesi

Details

AGLC: R v Ravesi [2016] SASC 128
Case: [2016] SASC 128
Decision Date: 11 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Criminal Case against Francesco Ravesi, the defendant, the court was tasked with the issue of the revocation of his bail. The defendant had been granted bail by the Court of Appeal, but the Crown sought to have it revoked on the basis of alleged non-compliance with bail conditions. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Jane Frances Richardson. The legal issues that the court was required to address were primarily concerned with whether the conditions of the defendant's bail had been breached and, if so, whether this constituted a sufficient ground for revocation.

The court examined the terms of the bail conditions and the evidence presented by both parties. It was noted that the defendant had indeed failed to comply with one of the conditions, which was to surrender his passport. However, the Crown argued that this failure was coupled with other conduct that suggested a risk to the community, including threats made to a witness and the defendant's failure to report to the police as required. The court also considered the defendant's character, his background, and the nature of the charges against him. The judge found that the non-compliance with the bail conditions, coupled with the other factors, warranted the revocation of bail.

Justice Richardson concluded that the breach of bail conditions, along with the defendant's other conduct, indicated a significant risk to the community and the potential for interference with the judicial process. The judge found that the grounds for revocation were met and ordered the defendant's bail to be revoked. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to bail conditions and the potential consequences of non-compliance. The final orders of the court included the revocation of the defendant's bail and the direction that he be remanded in custody until the conclusion of his trial.

Orders