Clinton v The Queen - [2015] NSWSC 1953

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Clinton v R [2015] NSWSC 1953
Hearing dates: 14 December 2015
Date of orders: 14 December 2015
Decision date: 14 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Bail refused

Catchwords: BAIL – show cause – unacceptable risk – where applicant seeks to traverse guilty pleas – where applicant faces sentencing two days hence
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 16B; 17; 18; 22
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
M v R [2015] NSWSC 138
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Thomas Clinton (applicant)
Regina
Representation: Solicitors:
R Daoud (applicant )
S Higgins (Crown)

File Number(s): 2015/263806
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is a bail application brought by Mr Thomas Clinton who stands charged with a number of dishonesty offences. The dates of the offences range from 2008 until early 2014. Mr Clinton has been in custody since his arrest for the latest charges on 13 August 2014. On 15 September 2014, he sought bail in this Court in respect of those charges, the precise number of which is not clear from the judgment given that day. On that date, Blackmore AJ refused Mr Clinton’s release application and upheld a detention application by the Crown in respect of 10 earlier charges. The result is that the applicant appears now to have been refused bail in respect of all matters although the precise position is not clear from the material before me.
The applicant faced trial for a number of the charges in the District Court. I am informed by the Crown that a trial was first fixed in September 2013 at a time when the applicant was at liberty. That trial was aborted due to the applicant's poor health. He was ultimately called for trial before Lakatos SC DCJ. An indictment dated 10 December 2014 containing two counts was presented first. During the course of the trial, Mr Clinton pleaded guilty to those two charges. Subsequently, before the same judge, he pleaded guilty to seven counts on a second indictment dated 19 December 2014 in association with which there was a Form 1 listing a further 19 fraud charges.
The proceedings were then listed for sentence before Lakatos DCJ, initially in February 2015 and on two further adjourned dates until, in July 2015, the applicant sought leave to withdraw his pleas. That application was refused by Lakatos DCJ. The applicant sought leave under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal against that decision. That application is listed before the Court of Criminal Appeal on 4 February 2016.
In the meantime, the proceedings for sentence came before Lakatos DCJ again on 20 November 2015 but could not proceed on that date because the applicant was in hospital. The sentence proceedings are now listed for hearing before Lakatos DCJ on 16 December 2015, some two days hence.
The applicant also has an appeal against conviction…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Clinton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Clinton v The Queen [2015] NSWSC 1953
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1953
Decision Date: 14 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Clinton v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Clinton, sought to overturn his guilty pleas and secure bail. The dispute centred on whether Clinton posed an unacceptable risk to the community, warranting continued detention until his sentencing, which was scheduled for two days later. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the lower court erred in denying Clinton's bail application.

The central legal issue was whether the lower court correctly assessed the risk posed by Clinton and if its decision to deny bail was justified. The court had to consider the principles of bail law, including the risk of reoffending and the severity of the potential penalty. It was also required to examine whether Clinton's prospects of success in overturning his guilty pleas were sufficient to warrant bail. The court's analysis hinged on the balance between Clinton's right to liberty and the need to protect the community.

The High Court held that the lower court had appropriately assessed the risk posed by Clinton and correctly denied bail. The court found that the lower court's reasoning was sound and that the risk of reoffending was significant. The severity of the potential penalty further supported the decision to maintain custody. The court also noted that the prospects of success in overturning the guilty pleas were not strong enough to warrant bail. Consequently, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision. The final orders confirmed that Clinton would remain in custody until his sentencing.

Orders