R v S [2016] NSWCCA 189

R v S [2016] NSWCCA 189

The Court held that the respondent had not shown cause why detention is not justified under s. 16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), having regard to the seriousness of the alleged offending, breach of bail conditions while on conditional liberty, decrease in family support, lack of diligence in accessing her son and addressing mental health, and overall strength of the Crown case. The respondent demonstrated no convincing likelihood of compliance with bail conditions and presented unacceptable risks which could not be adequately addressed by any conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Crown Application for Detention (bail) / Detention Application Hearing – Orders and Reasons for Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Detention application granted; bail refused; respondent returned to custody
Legal Topics
['bail' 'detention Application' 'serious Offending' 'custodial Sentences' 'family Support' 'mental Health Issues']
['criminal Law'] ['bail' 'detention Application' 'serious Offending' 'custodial Sentences' 'family Support' 'mental Health Issues']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Application for Detention (bail) / Detention Application Hearing – Orders and Reasons for Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent has shown cause why detention is not justified under s. 16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW)' 'Whether unacceptable risks exist if bail is granted' 'Assessment of support and compliance with bail conditions']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the respondent had not shown cause why detention is not justified under s. 16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), having regard to the seriousness of the alleged offending, breach of bail conditions while on conditional liberty, decrease in family support, lack of diligence in accessing her son and addressing mental health, and overall strength of the Crown case. The respondent demonstrated no convincing likelihood of compliance with bail conditions and presented unacceptable risks which could not be adequately addressed by any conditions.

Court Disposition

Detention application granted; bail refused; respondent returned to custody

Orders

  • ['The detention application is granted.' 'Bail is refused.' 'The respondent is to be returned to custody.']