Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
THWAITES v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 130
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Livesey (ex tempore)
9 July 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - REVOCATION, VARIATION, REVIEW AND APPEAL
Application for review of bail.
Mr Thwaites was charged with multiple offences including aggravated violent offending, false imprisonment, aggravated possessing of a category H firearm and taking part in a humiliating or degrading act.
Mr Thwaites was arrested on 4 September 2019. He was denied bail in the Magistrates Court and now seeks a review of the Magistrate’s decision.
Section 10A(1) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA) provides that bail is not to be granted to a "prescribed applicant" unless the applicant establishes the existence of "special circumstances" justifying the applicant’s release on bail. Mr Thwaites concedes that he is a “prescribed applicant” but contends that a number of special circumstances exist to rebut the s 10A(1) presumption against bail including the effect that COVID-19 has had on his ability to prepare his defence, his risk of contracting the illness from other prison inmates, his loss of residence and loss of contact with his son, the strength of the prosecution case and the fact that his uncle is terminally ill.
Held, dismissing the application:
1. The matters raised by the applicant do not comprise “special circumstances”. They are part of the ordinary and foreseeable consequences of incarceration.
2. Bail is refused.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 10A, s 14; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20, s 24, s 137; Firearms Act 2015 (SA) s 9, s 25; Firearms Regulations 2017 (SA) Sch 1; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 26B, referred to.
Lavers v Fauser (1986) 41 SASR 593; Lillyman v The Queen [2020] SASC 55; R v Buhlmann [2010] SASC 123; R v Doyle [2014] SASC 199; R v Lombardi (2013) 115 SASR 577; R v P, AC (2005) 158 A Crim R 113; R v Perre [2017] SASC 102; Saywell v Yiu (1976) 14 SASR 56, considered.
THWAITES v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASC 130LIVESEY J (ex tempore):
Introduction
Mr Clinton Joseph Thwaites (the applicant) is 27 years of age and unemployed. He seeks a review of the refusal by a Magistrate to grant him bail on 6 March 2020 pursuant to s 14 of the Bail Act 1985 (SA). It appears to be common ground that the applicant is a “prescribed applicant” within the meaning of s 10A(2) of the Bail Act 1985 (SA).
The applicant contends:
The grounds relied upon by the applicant are the Magistrate erred in finding the seriousness of the alleged offending and the need to protect the witness and the community outweighed the defendant’s special circumstances and right to bail.
Of course, it is well settled that the review is in the nature of an appeal de novo.[1] It must be determined on the information before this Court without regard to…
Continue reading Thwaites v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Thwaites v The Queen [2020] SASC 130
- Case
- [2020] SASC 130
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court's task was to conduct a de novo review of the bail application, independent of the earlier decisions. This involved examining the seriousness of the allegations, the defendant's history of breaching bail conditions, and the need to protect the community and the victim. The court considered various pieces of evidence, including affidavits from law enforcement officials, photographs, and forensic reports. The evidence highlighted the gravity of the charges, the defendant's involvement in prior breaches of bail conditions, and the necessity to protect the victim and the public.
In its reasoning, the court found that the earlier decisions to refuse bail were well-founded given the serious nature of the charges and the defendant's history of breaching bail conditions. The evidence presented during the review did not sufficiently alter the court's view that the defendant posed a risk to the community and the victim. Consequently, the court upheld the previous decisions to deny bail, reaffirming the importance of protecting the public and the complainant in light of the serious allegations against the defendant.
The final orders of the court were to maintain the decision to deny bail to the defendant. The seriousness of the charges, combined with the defendant's history of breaching bail conditions, justified the continued denial of bail.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: LIVESEY J
Full text does not contain this section.