Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v AC (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 354 Hearing dates: 29 March 2016 Date of orders: 29 March 2016 Decision date: 29 March 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Hamill J Decision: Bail refused.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL – application for bail - bail refused Legislation Cited: Court Suppression Act 2010 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina
Witness MRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
K McKay & P Hogan (Crown)
H Dhanji (Witness M)
Solicitor for the NSW DPP(Crown)
Oxford Lawyers (Witness M)
File Number(s): 2014/90422; 2014/315510 Publication restriction: No publication until further order.
EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)
-
Witness M has been on bail for an extended period. A forceful application for her detention was made when she entered a plea of guilty to two offences, including an offence of being an accessory before the fact to murder. I refused that detention application.
-
She has remained on bail for the three weeks and she has done, to her credit, everything that she and her solicitor said she would do. However, the situation is that there is no doubt that a lengthy period of incarceration will follow these sentencing proceedings and I think the motivation that she has to flee has reached a point where bail can no longer be justified.
-
The sentence has to commence at some point and whilst plainly the purpose of bail is not some pragmatic way of having people start to serve their sentence, in the present case the situation has been reached where I think bail must be refused.
-
A concern raised by Mr Dhanji was that because of the nature of her potential incarceration, she may be at some risk in the time between today and when sentence is finally imposed. However, I have been assured by the Corrective Services officers in Court that she will in fact be taken directly to the [redacted] and so that concern really falls away.
-
For that reason, bail will be refused and Witness M should go into custody today. Otherwise the matter is adjourned until Friday 1 April.
-
I order for the safety of the witness pursuant to section 8(1)(b) of the Court Suppression Act 2010 (NSW) that the place where the offender is to be incarcerated is suppressed.
**********
- AGLC
- R v AC (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 354
- Case
- [2016] NSWSC 354
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that AC’s criminal history, including prior drug-related offences and absconding from supervision, demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the court noted that the charges against AC were of a serious nature, indicating a potential for substantial harm to the community. The prosecution argued that AC was a flight risk, given their history of failing to appear in court and the international connections potentially available for evading justice. The court ultimately concluded that the risk to the community if AC were granted bail outweighed the appellant’s right to liberty. The appellant's history of absconding and the potential for reoffending if released on bail led the court to refuse the bail application.
The court’s decision was based on the substantial evidence of AC’s propensity to commit further offences and the serious nature of the charges. The court emphasised that the paramount consideration was the protection of the community, which could not be adequately safeguarded by imposing bail conditions. Consequently, the application for bail was refused, and AC remained in custody pending the resolution of the charges against them.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.