R v S

Case [2016] NSWCCA 189 12 August 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v S [2016] NSWCCA 189
Hearing dates: 12 August 2016
Date of orders: 12 August 2016
Decision date: 12 August 2016
Before: Macfarlan JA
Hall J
Bellew J
Decision:
Orders made on 12 August 2016:
(1) The detention application is granted.
(2) Bail is refused.
(3) The respondent is to be returned to custody.

Catchwords: BAIL – Crown application for detention – Serious offending – Where some of the alleged offending was committed whilst on bail – Strong Crown case – Inevitable custodial sentence if convicted – Reduction in level of immediate family support since respondent’s initial release – Cause not shown – Detention application granted
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Director for Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Brooks [2015] NSWCCA 190
R v Kugor [2015] NSWCCA 14
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown – Applicant
S – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr H Baker – Crown
Ms C O’Neill – Respondent
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) – Crown
Aboriginal Legal Service – Respondent

File Number(s): 2016/153811
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Date of Decision:

19 July 2016

Before:

Garling J

Judgment

THE COURT: On 28 July 2016, pursuant to s. 50 of the Bail Act2013 (NSW) (“the Act”) the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) made an application for the detention of the respondent, following orders made for her release by Garling J on 19 July 2016. The applicant was heard by the Court on 12 August 2016.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court made orders granting the application, refusing bail and returning the respondent to custody. The Court indicated at that time that its reasons would be published. Those reasons now follow.

BACKGROUND

On 12 March 2016 the respondent was arrested and charged with the following offences:

intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property on 2 March 2016 (contrary to s. 195(1)(A) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW)); and

stalk/intimidate on 11 March 2016 (contrary to s. 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)).

These two matters will be referred to for convenience as “the alleged March offending”.
Following her arrest and charge for the alleged March offending, the respondent was released on the following conditions:

to be of good behaviour;

not to contact or approach the alleged victim (B) at her home or at any other place; and

not to go within 100 metres of B’s residence.

On 15 March 2016, the respondent was arrested and charged with breaching condition (iii). She was again released on the same conditions.
On 6 April 2016, whilst on conditional liberty pursuant to such release, the respondent was arrested and charged with the following further offences:

specially aggravated detain for advantage on 29 November 2015 (contrary to s. 86(3) of 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.

Continue reading R v S

Details

AGLC: R v S [2016] NSWCCA 189
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 189
Decision Date: 12 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v S, the respondent applied for bail in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent was facing serious charges which included offences committed whilst on bail. The prosecution opposed the application on the basis of the gravity of the alleged offending, the strength of the evidence against the respondent, and the risk of reoffending. The court was required to weigh the seriousness of the alleged crimes against the respondent’s right to freedom and the potential impact of detention on their immediate family. The Crown argued that due to the severity of the offences and the likelihood of a custodial sentence, the respondent should be detained pending the outcome of the trial.

The court considered the principles of bail, particularly the presumption in favour of bail unless it can be shown that detention is necessary to ensure the respondent’s attendance in court. The judge examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the nature of the alleged crimes, the strength of the prosecution case, and the respondent’s history of compliance with bail conditions. The court also took into account the reduction in immediate family support since the respondent’s initial release on bail. Ultimately, the court determined that the risk of reoffending, combined with the strength of the prosecution’s case, outweighed the respondent’s right to liberty. Therefore, the application for detention was granted.

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent should be detained pending trial. The judge emphasised the gravity of the alleged offences, the strong evidence against the respondent, and the lack of demonstrated cause for reducing the level of immediate family support since the initial release on bail. The court was satisfied that detention was necessary to ensure the respondent’s attendance in court and to protect the community. The respondent was remanded in custody until the conclusion of the trial.

Orders