R v Sheridan No. Sccrm-04-119

[2004] SASC 150

R v SHERIDAN
[2004] SASC 150

Criminal

1. GRAY J                 This is an application for bail review.

2. Section 10 of the Bail Act1985 (SA) sets out the relevant criteria to be addressed when considering bail. There is a presumption in favour of bail. A court is to grant bail unless satisfied that bail should not be granted.

3. The applicant has been committed for trial in the District Court on a number of charges, including possession of amphetamines for sale. The trial was listed for hearing in April 2004.  Due to the unavailability of a judge to hear the trial the matter did not proceed.  The trial is now listed for hearing in December 2004. 

4. It is a matter of concern for a person charged with an offence that the trial proceed promptly and on the set date.  As Heenan J observed in R v Pinkstone:[1]

   The courts acknowledge that an accused person has a fundamental right to a speedy trial and they make strenuous efforts to protect that right.  Despite those efforts, and despite the cooperation of the profession in the vast majority of cases, delay in bringing cases to trial is a troublesome feature of the administration of justice in this country.

   The applicant now faces a significant delay before her trial.  A refusal of bail would result in the applicant remaining in custody until December 2004.  It was through no fault of the applicant that the matter failed to proceed to trial in April 2004.  This is a relevant matter to be considered when considering the applicant’s application for a grant of bail.[2]

   [1] R v Pinkstone (2000) 114 A Crim R 377 at 379

   [2] Section 10(1)(g) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA)

5. The applicant’s antecedent report disclosed a number of minor convictions. However, apart from a motor registration offence, she has had no conviction since January 1995.  Her prior offending principally related to prostitution.  There is one prior offence for possession of cannabis in 1987.  The applicant is also presently charged with a number of other offences to be heard in summary jurisdictions.

6. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed a grant of bail. It was said that the case against the applicant in respect of the possession of amphetamines for sale is strong.  Counsel accepted that strict conditions of bail would remove any material risk of flight.  However the Director was concerned with the risk that the applicant would further offend if granted bail. It was emphasised that the applicant had previously had the advantage of an order for home detention bail with electronic monitoring.  It was said that she had breached the terms of that bail by the conduct that gives rise to further offending. These are important matters to be weighed when considering a grant of bail.

7. A bail report ordered by the court was favourable to the applicant.  A home detention report approved the specified premises as suitable for home detention bail with electronic monitoring.

8. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, both in the District Court and in the summary jurisdiction, there should be a grant bail on the following terms:

   -the applicant is granted home detention bail with electronic monitoring.

   -the applicant is to comply with the terms of electronic monitoring home detention bail.

   -the applicant is not to leave the home detention premises without the written permission of her supervising officer, save for any life threatening emergency situation that may arise.

   -there are to be no drugs or alcohol on the home detention premises, either in the possession of the applicant or any other person.  This includes the co-owner of the home detention premises.  It also applies to any person who may visit the home detention premises.  Excluded are required medically prescribed drugs.

   -       the applicant is to submit to random alcohol and other drug testing.

   -the applicant is to forfeit the sum of $20,000.00 to the Crown in the event of a failure to comply with the terms of bail.

   It is a further condition of bail that there be two guarantors.  Each guarantee is to be in the amount of $20,000.00.  Cash surety of $20,000.00 is to be lodged with the Sheriff’s Office by each guarantor.

9. The application for bail review is granted.  The applicant is to be released on bail on the terms earlier referred to.

   JUDGMENT CITATIONS LISTED IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE IN JUDGMENT

   1      R v Pinkstone (2000) 114 A Crim R 377 at 379

   2 Section 10(1)(g) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA)