Dennis v Lanternier
[2016] WASC 303
•15 SEPTEMBER 2016
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: DENNIS -v- LANTERNIER [2016] WASC 303
CORAM: MARTINO J
HEARD: 15 SEPTEMBER 2016
DELIVERED : 15 SEPTEMBER 2016
FILE NO/S: SJA 1068 of 2016
BETWEEN: PETER GEORGE DENNIS
Appellant
AND
LOUIS GERMAINE LANTERNIER
FAYE LEANNE CLAYSON
TRACEY MOYNA NESBITT
Respondents
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :MAGISTRATE S RICHARDSON
File No :RO 6847 of 2015, RO 6854 of 2015, RO 6855 of 2015, RO 7009 of 2015, RO 7010 of 2015, RO 7011 of 2015, RO 7012 of 2015, RO 7013 of 2015, RO 7014 of 2015, PE 21660 of 2016, PE 21661 of 2016, PE 21662 of 2016, PE 21663 of 2016, RO 403 of 2015, RO 404 of 2015, RO 405 of 2015, RO 406 of 2015, RO 407 of 2015, RO 2247 of 2015, RO 2248 of 2016, RO 2249 of 2016
Catchwords:
Bail pending appeal from Magistrates Court - Exceptional reasons
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 (WA), cl 1, cl 3A, cl 5, sch 1, pt C
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant: In person
Respondents : Ms J N Harman
Solicitors:
Appellant: In person
Respondents : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Scolaro v Shephard [2010] WASC 77
MARTINO J: This is the hearing of the applicant's application for bail on his appeal from decisions made in the Magistrates Court, in which it appears he was sentenced to a total of 18 months' imprisonment for 21 offences of breaching restraining orders. The sentences appear to have been imposed on 4 May 2016, and then an additional sentence of 3 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently, was imposed on 10 August 2016.
The appeal notice is dated 15 August 2016 and was filed on 9 September 2016. I appreciate that it is not easy for Mr Dennis to lodge documents, because he is in custody, but even allowing for the fact that the appeal notice was signed on 15 August 2016, it is very late, having regard to the 28 day period from 4 May 2016, which is allowed for an appeal, unless an extension of time is granted.
The sentences imposed on 4 May 2016 were deemed to have commenced being served on 20 October 2015, and he was made eligible for parole. In an affidavit in support of the application for an extension of time to appeal Mr Dennis has said his parole has been denied.
In considering the application for bail, I do so under cl 5 of sch 1 of pt C to the Bail Act 1982 (WA), which provides that a person who is awaiting the disposal of an appeal proceedings from the Magistrates Court shall be deemed, for the purposes of pt C, to be awaiting an appearance in court before conviction for an offence. As Hall J said in Scolaro v Shephard [2010] WASC 77, the practical effect is that this court, when considering bail pending an appeal from a magistrate, is required by law to treat the appellant as if the appellant had not been convicted.
The relevant provisions of the Bail Act, it seems to me, are cl 3A of pt C of sch 1 to the Bail Act, and cl 1. Clause 3A applies because in relation to prosecutions Perth 21660 to 21663 of 2016, Mr Dennis was on bail for the charges of breaching the violence restraining order when he was charged with breaching a violence restraining order, in the case of those charges by sending text messages. For that reason, exceptional reasons must be established.
In cl 1, the relevant provision is whether if the accused is not kept in custody, he may commit an offence. It appears, from Mr Dennis' pleas of guilty, that over a period from 26 September 2015 to 14 April 2016, Mr Dennis committed 21 offences of breaching a violence restraining order. Many of those offences were committed after prosecutions had been commenced for the earlier offences. Some were committed while on bail, and some were committed while in custody, by sending letters from prison, in breach of the violence restraining order.
Having regard to that history, it is my view that if not kept in custody, there is a risk that Mr Dennis may commit a further breach of a violence restraining order. I take into account that he has undertaken appropriate courses while in prison, and he has provided reference to his good character today. He has also told me that he has learnt his lesson.
However, I am not satisfied on the information presently available to me that any condition could sufficiently remove the risk of Mr Dennis again contacting the person protected by the violence restraining order if he were to be released from prison.
Further, I am not satisfied that any exceptional reasons exist that would justify a grant of bail. For those reasons, the application for bail is refused.
0