R v Webb - [2019] SASC 8

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
R v WEBB
[2019] SASC 8
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hinton (ex tempore)
1 February 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application under s 14 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) for the review of an order made in the Magistrates Court refusing bail.
On 24 December 2018 Mr Webb was arrested and charged with threatening a person involved in a criminal investigation or judicial proceeding to cause that person to act or not act in a way that might influence the outcome of the investigation or proceeding, contrary to s 248(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Bail was applied for and refused in the Magistrates Court on 27 December 2018. Mr Webb sought a review of that decision.
Mr Webb was a prescribed applicant within the meaning of s 10A(2)(d)(ii) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA). His application was brought on the grounds that special circumstances existed to justify his release on bail these being the delay in his matter reaching trial, his limited antecedents, his primary caregiving responsibilities to his two young sons, his employment to which he could return, his financial obligation to maintain his mortgage payments and the over-representation of Aboriginal persons in custody.
Held, allowing the application:
1. Bail is granted.
2. Special circumstances have been established.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) ss 10A(1), 14; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 83GA(1)(c), 248(1)(b); Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act 2015 (SA) sch 1, referred to.
R v Brown [2013] NSWCCA 178; R v Buhlmann [2010] SASC 123; R v Hayes [2018] SASC 114; R v Lombardi (2013) 115 SASR 577, considered.

R v WEBB
[2019] SASC 8
Criminal
HINTON J (ex tempore):

This is an application under s 14 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) (the Act) for the review of the decision of a Magistrate refusing to grant Mr Webb bail.
On 24 December 2018 Mr Webb was arrested and charged with threatening a person involved in a criminal investigation or judicial proceeding to cause that person to act or not act in a way that might influence the outcome of the investigation or proceeding, contrary to s 248(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA). That offence is a major indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years.
The police allegations commence with the arrest and charge of Dylan Garner on 23 December 2018 with the offence of blackmail. Mr Garner is alleged to be a member of the Rebels Outlaw Motor Cycle Gang, an outlaw motorcycle club well known to the criminal courts in this State and one which the Parliament declared in 2015 as a “criminal organisation” for the purposes of s 83GA(1)(c) CLCA.[1] In the course of committing the offence with which he was charged Mr Garner is said to have been wearing his colours…

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 Webb

Details

AGLC: R v Webb [2019] SASC 8
Case: [2019] SASC 8
Decision Date: 1 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Paul Andrew Webb, the defendant faced charges related to serious criminal activity, including drug trafficking and organised crime. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the primary focus was on the legal and procedural aspects of the revocation of bail. The case was brought to the court due to an application by the prosecution to revoke the bail conditions that had previously been set for the defendant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established sufficient grounds to revoke the defendant's bail conditions. This required a detailed examination of the circumstances under which bail had been granted, the subsequent conduct of the defendant, and the impact of this conduct on the integrity of the bail process. The court needed to balance the rights of the defendant with the public interest in ensuring that bail conditions were not breached in a manner that would compromise the judicial process.

The court, in its detailed analysis, found that the prosecution had not met the required threshold to revoke the bail. It was determined that while the defendant's conduct had raised concerns, it did not sufficiently justify the revocation of bail. The decision highlighted the stringent criteria that must be met for bail to be revoked and emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the bail system. The court's ruling underscored the need for clear and compelling evidence to support any application to alter or revoke existing bail conditions.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the prosecution's application to revoke the bail. The decision reaffirmed the stringent standards required for such actions and provided clarity on the procedural requirements for dealing with bail applications. This ruling is likely to have significant implications for future cases involving bail revocation and the procedural safeguards that must be observed.

Orders