R v Ribbon - [2020] SADC 30

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v RIBBON
[2020] SADC 30
Ruling of Her Honour Judge Deuter
17 March 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - SECOND APPLICATION
Applicant charge with Importing a Commercial Quantity of Border controlled Precursor. Applicant found guilty at trial and sentenced to 17 years imprisonment with a Non-parole period of 12 years.
The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed an appeal against conviction, and a re-trial was ordered. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal was that certain matters should not have gone to the jury, but that it was not established that the verdict was unreasonable. The Court of Criminal Appeal also determined an application for bail against the applicant, based on all the facts and circumstances understood by the Court having reviewed all the evidence at trial. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the applicant was a serious flight risk.
The applicant brought a fresh application for bail based on affidavit evidence from several deponents.
Held: Application refused. The submissions made on the application were largely the same as those made to the Court of Criminal Appeal. There was no change of circumstances from the time of the bail hearing before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 5, s 10, s10(b)(1), s 12(2), referred to.
Ribbon v The Queen [2019] SASCFC 130; Webster v State of South Australia (2003) 87 SASR 17, applied.

R v RIBBON
[2020] SADC 30

This is an application by Clinton George Ribbon for release on Home Detention bail made pursuant to Part Three of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) (‘the Bail Act’).
This matter has had a lengthy history.
Mr Ribbon is charged on Information laid by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions of the offence of Importing a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Precursor, contrary to s 307.11 (1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).
The factual basis of Mr Ribbon’s offending is that it is alleged that between about the third day of October 2013 and about the 18^th day of August 2014 at Walkley Heights or elsewhere, he imported a substance intending to use, or believing that another person intended to use, any of the substance to manufacture a controlled drug. The imported substance was a border controlled precursor, namely pseudoephedrine. The amount imported was a commercial quantity, namely 13,445.4 g and it was imported in a shipping container from Thailand, arriving at Port Botany in New South Wales on or about the 18^thAugust 2014.
History of proceedings
The matter was first listed for a 20-day trial commencing 6 March 2017. This trial was vacated due to evidentiary issues and re-listed to commence for twenty days commencing 26 February 2018. After commencement of the trial on 28 February 2018 the Judge declared a mistrial and discharged the jury on 21 March 2018, as a result of evidentiary issues that had been presented in detail to the jury and could…

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 Ribbon

Details

AGLC: R v Ribbon [2020] SADC 30
Case: [2020] SADC 30
Decision Date: 17 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ribbon was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Ribbon, was facing criminal charges and had previously been denied bail. Ribbon subsequently made a second application for bail, which was the subject of the court's consideration. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were any new or significant circumstances that warranted reconsideration of the initial bail decision. The court was required to assess whether the defendant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a change in circumstances that would justify a favourable outcome on the second bail application.

The court emphasised that the grant of bail is not an automatic right, but rather a privilege that must be carefully weighed against the interests of the community. The second application for bail was considered in light of the principles set out in previous cases, which require a demonstration of new or exceptional circumstances. The court noted that while the defendant had presented some new evidence, it was insufficient to outweigh the public interest in maintaining the defendant's custody. The court concluded that the application for bail should be denied, as there was no compelling reason to alter the initial decision based on the evidence provided.

The court's decision was grounded in the balance between the defendant's right to liberty and the need to protect the community. The evidence presented did not sufficiently demonstrate a significant change in circumstances that would warrant a different outcome. As a result, the second application for bail was dismissed, and the defendant remained in custody pending the resolution of the criminal charges against them. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of the public interest in the administration of justice, reinforcing the stringent criteria that must be met for a successful bail application.

Orders