Singh v The Queen - [2015] NSWCCA 257

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Singh v R [2015] NSWCCA 257
Hearing dates: 14 October 2015
Date of orders: 14 October 2015
Decision date: 08 June 2016
Before: Macfarlan JA
Decision:
Orders as follows made on 14 October 2015:
That the applicant be released on the following conditions, namely that:
(i) he appear at the Liverpool Local Court on 21 October 2015 and thereafter as may be required;
(ii) he reside at 7 Phillip Street, Liverpool;
(iii) he not be absent from 7 Phillip Street, Liverpool between the hours of 8 pm and 6 am;
(iv) one acceptable person, namely Ravenna Singh, deposit the sum of $2,000.00 and agree to forfeit that amount in the event that the applicant fails to appear in accordance with his bail undertaking;
(v) he present himself at the front door of 7 Phillip Street Liverpool upon being directed to do so by any police officer to confirm compliance with his curfew, such direction to only be given by a police officer who believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so, having regard to the rights of other occupants of the premises to peace and privacy;
(vi) he not approach directly or indirectly, except through his legal advisers, Rayane Gobindram or any other person whom he is notified will be called in the proceedings against him;
(vii) he surrender his passport to the officer in charge of the investigation prior to entering bail; and
(vii) he not apply for any new passport or travel document.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – bail – first application for release refused – bail granted on second application – material change in circumstances due to charges being downgraded – bail concerns addressed by imposition of conditions
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tony Mawad [2015] NSWCCA 227
Direction of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
R v Kugor [2015] NSWCCA 14
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brendon Singh - Applicant
Representation:
Counsel:
R Rodger – Applicant
Mr P Ingram SC – Respondent
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 2015/241626
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Wilson J

Judgment

THE COURT: The applicant has made a release application pursuant to s. 49 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) (“the Act”). A previous application was refused by Wilson J on 5 August 2015.
The present application was heard by the Court on 14 October 2015. It was heard de novo: R v Kugor [2015] NSWCCA 14 at [4] per Hoeben CJ at CL. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court concluded that the application should be granted, and that the applicant should be released on the following conditions, namely that:

he appear at the Liverpool Local Court on 21 October 2015 and thereafter as may be required;

he reside at 7 Phillip Street, Liverpool;

he not be absent from 7 Phillip Street, Liverpool between the hours of 8…

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 Singh v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Singh v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 257
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 257
Decision Date: 08 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v The Queen involved the applicant, Singh, seeking bail from the court. Singh had initially applied for bail but was refused. Following a subsequent application, the court granted the applicant bail, noting that there had been a material change in the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the charges against Singh had been downgraded, which had an impact on the bail considerations. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had to consider the relevant legal issues pertaining to bail applications in light of the changed circumstances.

The court was required to determine whether there had been a material change in the circumstances that warranted reconsideration of the bail application. It had to assess the nature and seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal history, and the likelihood of the applicant reoffending. The court also needed to consider the risk of flight and any other factors that might impact the community if bail was granted. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the conditions of bail could sufficiently address any concerns about the applicant's potential to reoffend or endanger the community.

The court found that the downgrading of the charges represented a significant change in the circumstances of the case, warranting a fresh assessment of the bail application. The court concluded that, given the new charges, the applicant was less likely to reoffend and that the risk to the community had decreased. The court also found that the imposition of specific conditions could adequately address any remaining concerns. These conditions included strict reporting requirements, electronic monitoring, and restrictions on the applicant's movements. Based on these findings, the court granted bail to the applicant, subject to the specified conditions.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant be released on bail, subject to the conditions outlined in the judgment. These conditions included requirements for the applicant to report to a designated officer regularly, to wear an electronic monitoring device, and to refrain from entering certain areas. The court also imposed a curfew and prohibited the applicant from contacting certain individuals. The court's decision highlighted the importance of assessing bail applications on their individual merits, particularly in light of any significant changes in the circumstances of the case.

Orders