R v Remigio

[2006] SASC 14

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Criminal: Application)

R v REMIGIO

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray (ex tempore)

16 January 2006

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - BAIL

Application for review of a decision of a magistrate refusing bail - applicant released on home detention bail upon conditions.

R v REMIGIO
[2006] SASC 14

Application for Bail Review

GRAY J:

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a magistrate refusing bail.

2. The applicant, Jennifer Remigio, is charged with the offence of conspiracy to murder.  It is alleged that between 1 January 2004 and 15 October 2004 the applicant conspired with a person or persons to murder her husband, Michael Anthony Diago Remigio.

3. At approximately 3.30 am on 14 October 2004, Mr Remigio was sitting in the passenger seat of a vehicle parked outside a nightclub in Paco, a suburb of Manila in the Philippines.  An unidentified gunman approached the vehicle and shot Mr Remigio a number of times in the head and upper body. 

4. The applicant was arrested on 14 December 2005 and has been remanded in custody since that date.  She has at all times maintained her innocence, and continues to do so.

5. Prior to her arrest, the applicant is said to have cooperated with the police investigations.  Notwithstanding her international connections, she remained in Australia during the police investigation.  Due to financial circumstances, the applicant moved to Sydney to live with family during 2005.  She maintained contact with the police through her solicitor.

6. The Bail Act 1988 (SA) stipulates there is a presumption in favour of bail; that is, that an accused person be granted bail unless for one of the reasons identified in section 10 of the Act, a court considers that it is inappropriate to grant bail.

7. The allegations against the applicant are grave; however, I am of the opinion that any risks of flight or of interference with witnesses or other evidence can be adequately addressed by the imposition of strict conditions of bail.  By “strict”, I mean strict.

8. The applicant has considerable ties to the community.  She is the mother of two young children aged eight years and six years, who are dependent upon her.

9. In addition, the applicant has three guarantors willing to guarantee her compliance with bail.  Two of the guarantors reside in Sydney and have been present in court during the hearing of the bail review application.

10. The applicant is to be released on home detention bail.  She is to reside at 20 Ella Crescent, O’Halloran Hill, and is not to absent herself, except for: (1) any necessary medical or dental treatment, (2) to minimise the risk of serious injury or death, (3) for any other purpose approved in writing, and writing in advance, by a Community Corrections Officer of the Department of Correctional Services.  Whilst on bail, she is to obey the lawful instructions of any Community Corrections Officer assigned to supervise her, and she is to wear an electronic transmitter.  She is to comply fully with the rules relating to electronic monitoring.  She is not to consume any alcohol or any drug, except those that may be prescribed.  The applicant is to surrender her passport and to undertake not to seek a passport.  The applicant will not contact Mr Sutherland-Brown, a declarant in this matter.

11. The applicant is not to contact, directly or indirectly, anyone in the Philippines, except through her solicitors, Camatta Lempens Pty Ltd.  This contact must be related to business of a legal nature.  The applicant is not to be in possession of, or to make use of, a mobile phone at any time for any purpose.

12. There are to be three guarantors: Cecilia Kennedy, Colin Kennedy and Katherine Lonergan.  Each guarantee is in the amount of $50,000. Mr and Mrs Kennedy are each to lodge $25,000 cash surety.  Ms Lonergan is to lodge $5,000 cash surety.

13. As far as the guarantor, Ms Lonergan, is concerned, it is to be a term of her guarantee that she take steps to ensure that the telephone landline of the home detention premises is disabled from making or receiving international telephone calls.  Further, she will take all reasonable steps not to permit any person to enter the home detention premises whilst in possession of a mobile telephone, except for any police officer, or an employee of the Department of Correctional Services in the course of his or her employment.

14. In regard to that latter condition, I want to confirm the interchange with counsel.  I expect those reasonable steps to include advice to any land agent who may be involved in negotiations of the sale of the property that mobile phones, including the land agent’s, are not to be brought onto the property.  Any prospective purchaser must agree to leave their mobile phone outside the property.