Alleged Hindley St gang rapist given bail – and court permission to go to sister’s wedding

One of the men charged over the Hindley St gang rape of two women – which a court heard was filmed – can go to his sister’s wedding this weekend, a magistrate says.

An alleged gang rapist who is further accused of trying to bribe one of his victims has been granted home detention bail and given permission to attend his sister’s wedding this weekend.

On Thursday, the Adelaide Magistrates Court released the 21-year-old of Clearview on $500 bail and ordered he wear an electronic monitoring device at all times.

Magistrate Justin Wickens made the decision after police withdrew their opposition to the man’s release, following revelations that video footage of the incident had emerged.

At the request of defence counsel, Mr Wickens also ordered the man be given a pass-out to attend his sister’s wedding in the eastern suburbs this weekend between 6.30pm and 9.30pm.

That ruling drew an objection from the man’s brother, who was sitting in the body of the court.

“We have got a wedding, we’ve got food and everything, dinner will be from 9.30pm,” he said. “If you can make it until 10.30pm, it would be better.”

Mr Wickens agreed, but warned the alleged rapist not to breach his release.

“Understand this, if your pass-out says 6.30pm to 10.30pm you can’t leave your house before 6.30 and you cannot be back after 10.30,” he said.

“If you are you are in breach of your bail, the police will come and get you and they will lock you up. Any mistakes, there will not be any second chances.”

The court earlier heard police had been provided mobile phone camera footage of the alleged Hindley St gang rape, with the Clearview man’s lawyer saying that should prompt his client’s release on bail.

James Noblett, for the man, reminded the court that, following his client’s arrest last week, he said there were “two sides to every story”.

“As recently as yesterday, I was advised that a piece of video footage said to depict part of this incident was handed over to police, probably now about 48 hours ago,” he said.

“It was handed over in the context of another (legal) practitioner representing another one of the co-accused in this matter.

“I’m led to believe that footage may change the landscape somewhat, which goes back to my submission about two sides to every coin.”

The Plaza Hotel carpark on Hindley Street, where the gang rape is alleged to have occurred. Picture: Shashi Baltutis

Mr Noblett said he had yet to see the footage, and noted the prosecutor handling his client’s matter knew of its existence but had not seen it either.

He expressed concern police had yet to disclose the footage to him, and called for it to be provided to and played in the court.

Mr Noblett said he was also concerned police maintained their opposition to his client’s bail application despite the footage.

“I don’t want Your Honour to view this in chambers, it will be potentially relevant to releasing this man on bail,” he told Magistrate Justin Wickens.

“This is highly relevant material that either should be before this court or should be, at the very least, properly considered by those who are opposing bail.”

Mr Wickens queried the nature of the footage.

“You’ve not seen the footage yet, but you have been told by someone about what’s in it?” he asked.

Crime-scene tape outside the carpark on Hindley Street. Picture: Shashi Baltutis

“This is not CCTV, this is someone’s phone camera?”

Mr Noblett said that was correct.

“I won’t go into any detail about what I know and don’t know, other than the fact I have information that would suggest it (the footage) is relevant to the bail application,” he said.

“It’s something I consider Your Honour should have, given the opposition to bail.

“The police have it, the prosecutor does not have it, and I am concerned this man is in custody against this background.

“There should be no issue in relation to provenance … it’s been handed over, it depicts something that’s potentially relevant to this application.”

Mr Wickens adjourned the bail application until this afternoon to allow Mr Noblett and the prosecutor time to source the footage for the court.

On Thursday, Mr Wickens remanded the Cleariew man on home detention bail to face court alongside his co-accused in March.

Alleged Hindley St gang rapist’s freedom bid rejected

It comes after another of the alleged gang rapists – with a history of offending in stairwells – was refused bail on Wednesday due to his past failures to comply with supervision.

That man’s identity and image will remain suppressed until at least January, while SA Police continue gathering evidence over the alleged incident.

On Wednesday, counsel for the man asked the Adelaide Magistrates Court for a chance to find a new home for their client, after his existing one was found “unsuitable” for bail.

The man has a history of offending in stairwells. Picture: Shashi Baltutis

Magistrate Nick Alexandrides refused, saying the man’s history showed he could not be relied on to respect any bail conditions imposed.

“I’m refusing bail, having regard to the seriousness of the alleged offence and the inability of the defendant to comply with supervision,” he said.

“I’m remanding him in custody.”

The man, 23, of Kensington, has yet to plead to two counts of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent.

Police allege he is one of seven men who took part in the gang rape of two women in the stairwell of the Hotel Plaza carpark last weekend.

So far, police have arrested five other people – two youths, aged 16 and 17, a 20-year-old of Adelaide, a 20-year-old of no fixed address and a 21-year-old of Clearview – for rape.

A third youth, 17, is charged with offering one of the alleged victims $4000 to give false evidence.

Police allege he did so at the instruction of the 21-year-old from Clearview, who is also charged with that offending.

Last week, the 23-year-old applied for home detention bail.

Police opposed his release, saying his criminal history included past offending committed inside a stairwell.

On Wednesday, the man’s lawyer said her client’s proposed home detention bail address had been found to be “unsuitable”.

“He has suggested an alternative address that he would like to nominate – the issue is, that address is in the same (area) as the previous one,” she said.

Mr Alexandrides said he was not prepared to order a further bail inquiry report.

“The (existing) report contains information about your client’s previous compliance, and the degree of that compliance, while previously under the supervision of the Department for Correctional Services,” he said.

“That report concludes he’s not a suitable candidate for supervision in the community.”

Police prosecutors, meanwhile, told the court there was nothing on their computer system “to suggest identification procedures have been conducted” yet.

Mr Alexandrides banned publication of the man’s identity until January, and said he would reconsider the suppression order at that time.