Charges: Contravening domestic violence order x 2; Choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic relationship x 1.
Case type: Renewed application for bail.
Facts: The applicant and complainant had been in a domestic relationship. A domestic violence order had been granted (). The complainant made the following allegations: the applicant went to the complainant’s house and punched her in the leg (); he threw a pillow at the complainant; and put her in a choke hold (). Bail was originally refused (). Since then, new evidence of a demonstrated that a trial in the District Court would be more than a year away ().
Issues: Whether the evidence of a new trial date justified a grant of bail.
Decision and Reasoning: Bail was granted with conditions that he not have contact with the complainant, that he reside at a specified address, and that he report to the police daily.
Under s 16(3)(g) Bail Act 1980 (Qld), for which the new offence of strangulation is a ‘relevant offence’, the onus was on the applicant to show cause why bail should be granted (). The Court explained that on one hand, there was a real risk that he would reoffend because the applicant and complainant lived in the same town, and they may contact each other (). On the other hand, he had accommodation with family members available, an offer of employment (), and there was a real prospect that he would spend longer on remand than he would serve in custody (). On balance, the risk of reoffending was not unacceptable (s 16).