Rana v Police

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

RANA v POLICE

[2020] SASC 21

Judgment of The Honourable Auxiliary Justice David

13 February 2020

MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

MAGISTRATES - ORDERS AND CONVICTIONS - ORDERS TO RESTRAIN DOMESTIC, FAMILY OR APPREHENDED VIOLENCE OR FOR PERSONAL SAFETY

The appellant filed an application in the Magistrates Court for revocation of an intervention order that was issued against him in 2008. The appellant did not attend the hearing of the application. The Magistrate summarily dismissed the application pursuant to s 26(4) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA).

The appellant seeks permission to appeal against the Magistrate’s decision to refuse his application for the revocation of the intervention order.  The submissions raised on appeal were three-fold:

1.  The Magistrate applied the wrong onus, as the burden of proof applied was proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than proof on the balance of probabilities;

2.  There was an apprehension of bias as the matter was decided in his absence; and

3.  A psychological report the appellant sought to tender on appeal stated he would benefit from release of the order.

Held; it was open to the Magistrate to dismiss summarily the appellant’s application for the revocation of the intervention order.  Permission to appeal is refused.

Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 99, s 99C; Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 26, s 28, s 37, referred to.
Rana v Police [2008] SASC 280, considered.

RANA v POLICE
[2020] SASC 21

Magistrates Appeal:   Criminal

1. DAVID AJ:            The appellant appeals against a decision of a Magistrate refusing his application for the revocation of an intervention order which was made against him on 17 January 2008.  Both before the Magistrate and on this appeal, he represented himself.

2. On 17 January 2008, a restraining order was issued against the appellant pursuant to ss 99 and 99C of the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA). That order was confirmed on 2 July 2008 and now continues in force pursuant to s 37(2) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) (“IO Act”).

3. The intervention order included allegations that the appellant sent letters to the protected person (a female), presented at the protected person’s door on a number of occasions, caused the protected person to install additional security in her home and other matters, all of which are set out in the decision of Rana v Police.[1]

   [1] [2008] SASC 280.

4. The protected person has always stated that she did not feel safe on a daily basis and felt the appellant was capable of inflicting harm as she did not consider him to be mentally stable. 

5. On 7 January 2019, the appellant filed an application for revocation of the intervention order pursuant to s 26(1) of the IO Act.

6. The application was listed on 4 February 2019 and after further preliminary dates it was finally listed for 2 September…