Thompson v The Queen - [2020] SASC 193

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
THOMPSON v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 193
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Livesey (ex tempore)
1 October 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
The applicant was arrested and charged with trafficking in a controlled drug, namely GHB or “fantasy”, contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). Bail was applied for and refused in the Magistrates Court for the reasons that there was a risk that the applicant would reoffend and breach the terms of any bail agreement. Pursuant to s 14(2)(a) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA), the applicant sought a review of the order of the Magistrate refusing the applicant bail.
Held:
1. The applicant is on parole and has absconded while on home detention bail following the subject alleged offending. He has 25 convictions for breaching bail agreements.
2. The alleged offending is serious and there is a history of failing to comply with bail agreements.
3. The applicant’s application for bail is dismissed. Bail is refused.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 14(2)(a); Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32(3), referred to.
R v Richards [2019] SADC 124, considered.

THOMPSON v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 193
Criminal: Application
LIVESEY J:
Introduction

This is an application for review of bail pursuant to s 14(2)(a) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) (the Act) following a Magistrate’s refusal to grant bail on 23 September 2020.
The Magistrate found that there was a risk that the applicant will reoffend and breach the terms of any bail agreement. The applicant contends that he is a proper candidate for bail on strict home detention conditions.
The subject alleged offending
By Information dated 27 April 2020 the applicant has been charged with trafficking in a controlled drug, contrary to s 32(3) of the Control Substances Act 1984 (SA) (the Controlled Substances Act). The drug involved is GHB, also known as “fantasy”.
The prosecution alleges that during the afternoon of Sunday, 26 April 2020 a silver BMW was stopped after an earlier attempt to stop the vehicle was unsuccessful because the driver evaded police. It is alleged that police observed the applicant leave the vehicle and run away. Nonetheless the applicant was stopped some metres from the vehicle and searched.
It is alleged that $8,000 was found in the pants of the applicant, together with another $780 in his wallet. The applicant was arrested and taken to a nearby police station. There, a further bundle of cash was found in the applicant’s underpants, being the sum of $4,950. It is also alleged that police found a bundle of cash in the amount of $17,200 in the top of the female co-accused.
The prosecution alleges that a search of the motor vehicle revealed a water bottle containing 280 millilitres of what was suspected to be 1.4 Butanediol. I was today told that that may have a value of up to…

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 Thompson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Thompson v The Queen [2020] SASC 193
Case: [2020] SASC 193
Decision Date: 1 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thompson v The Queen involved the applicant, Mr Thompson, who sought to appeal against the revocation of his bail conditions by the County Court of Victoria. The applicant, who was facing charges of drug trafficking, had previously been granted bail by the County Court. However, the police subsequently applied for a revocation of bail after discovering that Mr Thompson had been in possession of a prohibited substance. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the County Court had erred in revoking the applicant's bail conditions. The applicant argued that the evidence presented by the police was insufficient to justify the revocation of bail, and that the County Court had failed to properly consider the applicant's right to a fair trial. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the revocation of bail, and that the County Court had exercised its discretion appropriately.

The court held that the County Court had not erred in revoking the applicant's bail conditions. The court found that the evidence presented by the police was sufficient to justify the revocation of bail, as it demonstrated that the applicant had breached the conditions of his bail by being in possession of a prohibited substance. The court also held that the County Court had properly exercised its discretion in revoking the applicant's bail, and that the applicant's right to a fair trial had not been prejudiced. The court further noted that the evidence of the prohibited substance was relevant to the applicant's credibility as a witness, and that this was a legitimate factor for the County Court to consider in deciding whether to revoke bail.

The court dismissed the applicant's appeal, and upheld the decision of the County Court to revoke the applicant's bail conditions. The court also noted that the applicant's right to a fair trial would be protected by the principles of natural justice, which required that the decision to revoke bail be made impartially and on the basis of sufficient evidence. The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders