R v Stefanopoulos No. Sccrm-03-154

[2003] SASC 217

R v STEFANOPOULOS

[2003] SASC 217

Bail Review

Gray J:  This is an application for bail review.

1. Section 10 of the Bail Act 1985 provides a presumption in favour of bail. It provides that bail should be granted unless the court considers that the applicant should not be released on bail having regard to a number of specified matters. Those matters include the gravity of the alleged offence, the likelihood of the applicant, if released, absconding or offending again, or interfering with evidence or witnesses.

2. The applicant, Con Stefanopoulos, is charged with one count of arson; six counts of non-aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence; six counts of larceny and six counts of receiving. He seeks a review of a magistrate’s refusal of bail.

3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that his client had a residence suitable for home detention bail.  The applicant was said to be willing to comply with any conditions ordered by the court in connection with his bail, including home detention electronic monitoring.  It was proposed that the applicant reside with his parents.  Both parents were prepared to provide modest cash guarantees. Counsel contended that the evidence outlined indicated that the Crown case was not strong and that there were good prospects of acquittals.

4. The circumstances of the applicant’s alleged offending were outlined. On the Crown case the applicant has committed multiple offences, whilst on a suspended sentence with good behaviour bond for drug offending. It is the Crown case that the applicant was found with others in the applicant’s place of residence in possession of a significant quantity of stolen goods.

5. In regard to the arson charge, the Crown alleged evidence disclosed a clear link between the applicant and others to the offence.  This included, it was said, credible identification evidence.

6. Counsel submitted that the circumstances of the appellant’s offending were grave.  On the Crown case the applicant had committed multiple offences whilst on a good behaviour bond.  The suspended sentence had been imposed in respect of drug offending.  On the Crown case the applicant was found with accomplices in the applicant’s place of residence in possession of a significant quantity of stolen goods.  In regard to the arson charge the Crown alleged that the evidence disclosed a clear link between the applicant and the accomplices involved in the offence.  It was said that there was credible identification evidence implicating the applicant.  Counsel for the Crown drew attention to the applicant’s extensive criminal antecedents and in particular a number of offences of dishonesty.  The emphasis was placed in particular on the applicant’s extensive drug offending, his convictions providing a false name and address and his breaches of bail on three previous occasions.  It was said that there was a real risk in these circumstances that the applicant would not comply with his terms of bail and in particular would not answer his bail.  It was contended that the applicant’s record suggested that he was addicted to drugs and that addiction was likely to have been a cause of his offending in respect to the charges presently before the court.

7. Counsel for the applicant responded that the applicant denied any drug addiction and was presently free of any traces of drugs.  However, no information was put before this court to support this assertion.

8. The applicant maintained his right of silence both at the time of the police interrogation and before this court on this application.  No adverse inferences are to be drawn from his decision in this respect.  However it leaves the Crown allegations as the only information before the court concerning the circumstances of the alleged offending.

9. In this matter, having regard to the gravity of the alleged offending and to the applicant’s criminal antecedents in particular his previous breaches of bail, I consider this application for bail review should be refused.