R v SUMNER - [2020] SASC 231

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v SUMNER
[2020] SASC 231
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Bleby
4 December 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application for review of bail.
The applicant is charged with 8 counts of aggravated assault against a child or spouse, 3 counts of choke, suffocate or strangle a person in a domestic setting, 1 count of aggravated threaten to kill or endanger life and 1 count of aggravated assault that causes harm. The offences are alleged to have been committed between 19 September 2019 and 9 May 2020 at Campbelltown.
On 22 May 2020, the applicant was granted bail in the Adelaide Magistrates Court. On 25 May 2020, the applicant appeared before Stanley J on an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the bail decision. Justice Stanley revoked bail. An application for bail before the Chief Magistrate on 1 September 2020 was refused. This review application relates to a further refusal to grant bail on 11 November 2020 by Magistrate Sheppard.
The applicant is a prescribed applicant under s 10A of the Bail Act 1985 (SA). The applicant submits that there is a combination of factors which, when taken together, amount to special circumstances for the purpose of s 10A.
In particular, the applicant contends that, by virtue of the complainants’ moving to Queensland, the application is fundamentally altered from when Stanley J revoked bail in May 2020. The respondent submits that the court must have regard to the need that the victim may have, or perceive, for physical protection from the applicant pursuant to s 10(4) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA), and that to the extent that the move was provoked by fear of the applicant, there is an unsettling aspect to a process of reasoning that would allow such an initiative by the complainant to be taken to improve the prospect of special circumstances such as might then support the granting of bail.
Held, per Bleby J, granting the application for review:
1. The complainants’ move to Queensland reduces the risks contemplated by s 10(1)(b) and s 10A by such an extent that the combination of the circumstances now relied upon is capable of amounting to special circumstances justifying the applicant’s release on bail.
2. Bail is granted under strict home detention conditions.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) ss 10(1)(a)-(b), 10(4), 10A; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20A; Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA), referred to.
R v Lombardi (2013) 115 SASR 577 ; R v Hayes [2018] SASC 114; R v Webb [2019] SASC 8, considered.

R v SUMNER
[2020] SASC 231
Criminal: Bail Review

BLEBY J: This is an application for review of a refusal of bail by a Magistrate on 11 November 2020. On that date, Magistrate Sheppard refused bail on the basis that there were no relevant special circumstances to justify a release on home detention bail and on account of…

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 SUMNER

Details

AGLC: R v SUMNER [2020] SASC 231
Case: [2020] SASC 231
Decision Date: 4 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SUMNER involved the defendant, Sumner, who had applied for a review of his bail conditions. The dispute centered around the defendant's bail, particularly the possibility of modifying the conditions under which he was being held, and whether there were special circumstances that warranted such a change. The matter was heard by Bleby J in the relevant Australian court.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the circumstances presented by the complainants moving to Queensland constituted special circumstances under the Bail Act that would justify a variation in the defendant's bail conditions. This required a careful assessment of the relevant sections of the Act, specifically s 10(1)(b) and s 10A, to determine if the relocation of the complainants to Queensland sufficiently mitigated the risks associated with granting the defendant bail.

Bleby J concluded that the relocation of the complainants did indeed constitute special circumstances, as it significantly reduced the risks that would otherwise necessitate strict bail conditions. The judge found that the combination of circumstances, including the complainants’ move, was sufficient to justify the defendant's release on bail under strict home detention conditions. The court considered the balance between the risk to the public and the rights of the accused, and determined that the modified conditions were appropriate in this instance.

Accordingly, the court granted the application for review and ordered that bail be granted under strict home detention conditions, reflecting the changed circumstances and the reduced risk of harm to the complainants.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held, per Bleby J, granting the application for review:

1. The complainants’ move to Queensland reduces the risks contemplated by s 10(1)(b) and s 10A by such an extent that the combination of the circumstances now relied upon is capable of amounting to special circumstances justifying the applicant’s release on bail.

2. Bail is granted under strict home detention conditions.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.