APPLICANT OUT ON BAIL COMMITS ANOTHER OFFENCE AND FAILS TO COMPLY WITH BAIL AGREEMENT
REZAEI v THE QUEEN [2020] SASC 183 (25 September 2020)
This case involves an application for bail by an applicant who is out on bail but subsequently committed an offence and at the same time failing to comply with the bail agreement by threatening to cause harm to the complainant’s daughter.
Facts:
The applicant was arrested and charged with four counts of sexual intercourse without consent and one count of threatening to distribute an invasive image of the complainant.
By reason of these last two offences, and for which the applicant was taken into custody, he is a “prescribed applicant” pursuant to s 10A(2) Presumption against bail in certain cases.
He was released on police bail with strict conditions one of the conditions included that there be no contact, whether directly or indirectly, with the complainant.
Whilst on police bail the applicant was arrested and charged with threatening a person involved in a criminal investigation to act in a way that might influence the outcome of that investigation and failing to comply with his bail agreement. The applicant spoke with the former husband and said words to the effect that if the complainant did not drop her complaints, their daughter would be killed. He allegedly said, “I know more about your family than you do. I know that she was at the park today with your child”.
Issue: Is the applicant entitled to bail for threatening to cause harm to the complainant’s daughter and at the same time for failing to comply with the previous bail conditions?
Law:
- Section 10A of Bail Act 1985- Presumption against bail in certain cases.
- 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.
Analysis:
Whilst not underestimating the applicant’s medical and psychological difficulties, the court does not regard them as sufficiently serious to be regarded as “special circumstances”. They are not life-threatening and they can be managed by Department for Correctional Services (DCS), albeit not optimally.
This, therefore, is a case where there is a presumption against bail notwithstanding the likely delay before these matters are tried. However, even if there were a presumption in favour of bail, the court is concerned about the serious nature of the allegations regarding the threat made by the applicant to the complainant, as well as the need to protect witnesses.
Conclusion:
Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the application for review of bail is dismissed and bail is refused.
