R v Pasikala

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Taniella Pasikala applies for bail. He has been in custody bail refused since the date of his arrest on 31 July 2018. He is charged with taking and detaining a person while in company to obtain an advantage and with demanding property by force in company with intent to steal. His matters are next before the Newtown Local Court on 2 October 2018 for mention. No plea has yet been entered for either offence.
2. The Crown opposes bail. It contends that all four of the matters listed in s 17(2) of the Bail Act 2013 apply and constitute unacceptable risks in this case.
3. The alleged background facts are briefly as follows. The victim is known to Mr Pasikala. They met while working together for a construction company. They became friends and trained together at a gym. On 21 July 2018, the victim went to Mr Pasikala's home in Mount Druitt where he was given a blue hooded jumper. The jumper had two pockets. The victim maintains that the pockets were empty.
4. On 27 July 2018, the victim received a telephone call from Mr Pasikala, asking, in effect, what happened to the sum of $7,000 that Mr Pasikala said was in one of the pockets when he gave him the jumper. Although it is not entirely clear, it seems that the victim continued to deny that there was any money in the garment when it was given to him. This conversation then became heated.
5. A couple of hours later, Mr Pasikala attended the victim's home with two associates. One of them was armed with a 20cm kitchen knife. It appears that the victim was threatened with the knife that was pointed towards him. He feared for his life and became upset. He was told by Mr Pasikala and his co-accused that if he did not give them the money by the following day he would die. The victim feared for his life and subsequently reported these events to the police.
6. Before that occurred, Mr Pasikala sent a series of text messages to the victim's mobile phone. Between 3.30pm on 27 July 2018 and 7.24pm on the following day, Mr Pasikala sent some 69 text messages to the victim's phone accusing him of lying about the money. None of these messages contained a threat. However, the Crown contends that the content of the messages clearly corroborates the fact that Mr Pasikala attended the victim's premises, as earlier described, and demanded the return of his money.