Director of Public Prosecutions v Hills (Ruling No 1)
[2010] VSC 609
•13 April 2010
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1491 of 2009
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CRAIG HILLS, KAREN HILLS, NC & BRODIE COOPER |
---
JUDGE: | KAYE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 8, 12, 13 April 2010 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 13 April 2010 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Hills & Ors (Ruling No 1) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2010] VSC 609 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Trial – Attempted murder – Revocation of bail of two accused – Intimidation of co-accused pleading guilty.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr G Horgan SC with Ms E Ruddle | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Craig Hills | Mr D Drake | C Marshall & Associates |
| For the Accused Karen Hills | Ms C Randazzo SC with Mr J Desmond | Robert Stary Lawyers Pty Ltd |
| For the Accused NC | Mr S Bayles | Robert Stary Lawyers Pty Ltd |
| For the Accused Brodie Cooper | Mr W E Stuart |
HIS HONOUR:
Application has been made by the prosecution to revoke the bail of the accused Craig Hills and Karen Hills. They are jointly charged, with NC and Brodie Cooper, with a number of offences, including attempted murder, kidnapping, intentionally causing serious injury, two counts of robbery and aggravated burglary.
The events, out of which the charges arose, occurred on the evening of 9 December 2008. The alleged victim of the offences, Leah Freeman, is known to both Karen and Craig Hills. Each of Karen and Craig Hills are also charged with a separate count of threatening to kill Ms Freeman.
Originally, the four accused were jointly charged with Kylie Meulenbrock, who was alleged to have participated in the events of 9 December 2008. The trial was set to commence before me on Wednesday 7 April of this year. On that day, the Crown filed over a separate presentment against Ms Meulenbrock, which included one count of kidnapping, and one count of recklessly causing Ms Freeman serious injury. On that day, Ms Meulenbrock pleaded guilty to those two charges. A plea was made on her behalf, in the course of which she gave an undertaking to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution in relation to the other four accused. I pronounced sentence on Ms Meulenbrock last Friday, 9 April.
Each of Karen and Craig Hills are on bail. NC is also on bail, and Mr Cooper is in custody. It is a condition of the bail of Craig Hills that he not associate with any accused save for NC, and a relevant condition of the bail of Karen Hills is that she not contact any co‑accused save for NC.
The application is made by Mr Horgan SC, who appears with Ms Ruddle on behalf of the prosecution under s 18(6) of the Bail Act. Mr Horgan made the application on three bases: first, that there had been a breach of that condition of bail by each of the two accused; secondly, that each of the two accused pose an unacceptable risk of further offending while on bail; and thirdly, that each pose an unacceptable risk that they would interfere with the Crown witness, namely Kylie Meulenbrock, if they remained on bail.
The application by the prosecution arises out of two incidents, which are alleged to have occurred during the morning of Wednesday 7 April. The first incident, which involved both Craig and Karen Hills, occurred in the bar of the Metropolitan hotel in William Street between 9.30 am and 10 am. The second incident, involving Karen Hills, is alleged to have occurred on the steps of Owen Dixon Chambers East, 205 William Street, Melbourne, shortly after 11 am.
The main focus of the application related to the first incident. The prosecution, in support of its application in relation to that incident, called Ms Rodica Marshall and Ms Meulenbrock to give evidence, and also tendered some CCTV footage of the bar of the Metropolitan hotel. In response, Ms Randazzo, senior counsel, who appears with Mr Desmond for Karen Hills, called Ms Rebecca Gatt to give short evidence.
In terms of the evidence, the CCTV footage discloses the relevant actions of the key proponents involved in the first incident. Ms Marshall was the bar attendant who was present at the Metropolitan hotel at the time. She was cross‑examined by counsel for both Craig and Karen Hills. In my view, she was an impressive witness. She was reliable and gave her evidence carefully, and, in my view, in an attempt to accurately convey what she recalled having occurred.
Ms Meulenbrock was also cross‑examined at some length. In relation to this aspect of the case, I found her to be largely reliable, although she had difficulty recalling the precise details of some of the incidents that occurred. There were some differences between her recall and the evidence of both the CCTV footage and Ms Marshall, and there was also some difference between her statement and the evidence. However, it seemed to me that she was, by and large, endeavouring to be an honest and reliable witness.
Ms Gatt’s evidence was relatively confined. It referred to an incident that occurred in the foyer of this court outside the court on the morning of 7 April. Ms Gatt, both in evidence and in re‑examination responding to cross‑examination, was adamant that that incident occurred before the incident at the Metropolitan hotel. I accept Ms Gatt’s evidence as being honest as to what occurred in that incident, and I accept Ms Gatt’s evidence that in that incident Mr Roland Griffiths, who is the boyfriend of Ms Meulenbrock, was shown to be engaged in provocative and untoward behaviour. However, I consider that she is mistaken as to the sequence in which that incident occurred, and I accept Ms Meulenbrock’s evidence that she did not attend at this court building before attending at the Metropolitan hotel, but, rather, that the incident referred to by Ms Gatt occurred after the case had been mentioned before me at 10.30 and then stood down. Indeed, in that respect Ms Gatt’s description of the conduct of Mr Griffiths bears some similarity to the description given by Ms Meulenbrock as to the behaviour of Mr Griffiths outside this court after the matter was stood down at 10.30.
I return, then, to the first incident. In making findings of fact in relation to it, I base my findings significantly on the evidence of the CCTV footage and Ms Marshall and, to a lesser extent, on that of Ms Meulenbrock. The sequence seems to me to be as follows. At about 9.30 am both Karen and Craig Hills were attending at the bar of the Metropolitan hotel. They were just out of sight, although a part of Ms Hills can be seen furthest from the camera, which, as I understand it, backs on to William Street. Some time later, between 9.30 and 10 am, Ms Meulenbrock, Roland Griffiths and Kylie’s father, Eddie Meulenbrock, attended at the Metropolitan hotel. They had previously been at a conference with Ms Meulenbrock’s counsel, Mr Greg Hughan. After he had sent them away, they had decided to go to the hotel to have a drink. Mr Griffiths stayed outside at a table outside to smoke. Ms Meulenbrock entered the hotel first. I accept that, in doing so, she had a clear and uninterrupted view of both Karen and Craig Hills. Eddie Meulenbrock, her father, entered shortly behind her, and they both stood at the bar facing in the same direction as Karen and Craig Hills, although at some distance from them. While they were there, they placed an order.
Pausing there, as I remarked in the course of argument, in my view it was particularly unwise, and indeed inappropriate, for Ms Meulenbrock to have remained in the Metropolitan hotel when she saw Karen and Craig Hills there. She was well aware of the terms of their bail bonds, and she was also well aware of the underlying antagonism, which appears to exist between the two groups. Be that as it may, she did not withdraw. Nor did her father, but, rather, they proceeded to order their drinks.
A short time after they arrived, which I calculated by watching the footage to be about 15 seconds, Craig Hills then walked down the bar and behind Eddie Meulenbrock and Kylie Meulenbrock. He walked to the left‑hand corner of the bar, and appeared to look behind it. At that time, Ms Marshall says that she was then talking to Karen Hills at the other end of the bar, and she noted that Karen Hills became quite agitated in her conduct.
After a short time, Craig Hills then walked again behind Eddie Meulenbrock and Kylie Meulenbrock. I interpolate that Kylie was standing to Eddie’s right at that time. Craig stood at the bar very close to Kylie Meulenbrock; indeed, his left shoulder was almost touching her right shoulder. Ms Marshall states, and I accept it, that at about this time Karen Hills started yelling, in their direction, words to the effect: “That’s her”. Ms Marshall described Karen Hills’s tone and conduct as being aggressive and abrupt. Ms Meulenbrock stated, and I accept, that Karen Hills also in that exchange yelled out words to the effect: “Whether you go to gaol or not, I want you dead”. At about that time, Craig Hills said to Kylie Meulenbrock: “I have one thing to say to you”, but was interrupted in doing so when Eddie Meulenbrock told Kylie to ignore him.
At that time, Eddie Meulenbrock pulled his daughter in front of him and to his left, so that he could stand between Kylie and Craig Hills. Ms Marshall states, and I accept, that Karen Hills was yelling out at that point words to the effect: “That’s him. Is that your f’ing boyfriend?”, to which Eddie responded: “No, I’m her father”. Ms Meulenbrock states that, at that time, Karen Hills also yelled out words to the effect: “You stay away from my son”.
Ms Marshall’s evidence, which I accept, is that at that point the behaviour of the two Hills escalated. At that point, Craig Hills was saying to Eddie Meulenbrock words to the effect: “Come on, let’s go outside”. He was clearly trying to get Eddie to go outside to have a fight. At all times, Eddie resisted that proposal, and told Craig Hills to go away. At the same time, Ms Marshall says, and I accept, that Karen Hills was shouting out: “That’s her”, and was trying to egg Craig Hills on to fight Eddie Meulenbrock.
Craig Hills can then be seen stepping back from the counter and commencing to remove his jacket off his shoulders. He pulled it a small way off his shoulders. At the same time Kylie Meulenbrock left the hotel to the left of the camera. She spoke to Roland Griffiths, who was on the footpath, and said, “Craig’s starting something with Dad”.
Craig Hills at that time was facing towards Eddie Meulenbrock. At the same time, Karen Hills walked fairly quickly down the bar, pointing her finger aggressively at Eddie, and yelling at him. Karen Hills then went back up the bar after a short time, and at that stage Craig was still standing on the corner of the bar. After about five seconds, he then walked towards Eddie, and spoke to him at very close quarters. Ms Marshall appropriately described Craig at that time as being in Eddie’s space.
At that point, Kylie Meulenbrock returned, and stood next to Eddie on his left. Craig Hills twice in the next few minutes put his left hand into the middle of Eddie Meulenbrock’s back. Ms Marshall said that at that time Craig Hills was saying to Eddie Meulenbrock: “Let’s go outside, let’s take this outside”, and Eddie Meulenbrock responded by telling Craig to go to the other end of the bar. Ms Marshall said that at that point she told Craig Hills to go to the other end of the bar, and for the two men to separate. Indeed, on the CCTV footage, she can be seen gesturing to Craig Hills to get away and go to the other end of the bar, but he did not do so. Ms Marshall says that at that stage Karen Hills was still verbally egging her brother Craig on to fight Eddie.
Ms Marshall says, and I accept, that throughout this incident Eddie Meulenbrock was quiet and civil and did not retaliate either verbally or physically, and that Kylie Meulenbrock also did not say anything. At that point, Roland Griffiths can be seen entering inside the bar. At about the same time, Craig Hills stepped back from the counter, and Roland Griffiths walked in front of him, and he was then standing to the right‑hand side of Eddie Meulenbrock. It was shortly after this that what could be called the main physical incident occurred.
While they were standing at the bar, Craig Hills with his hand took hold of the back of Eddie’s jacket, and started to pull him out of the bar towards the street. Eddie resisted and as he did so, Craig Hills turned to face Eddie Meulenbrock and shaped up to him in what could be properly described as a boxer’s stance with his fists clenched. In cross‑examination by Mr Drake, who appears for Craig Hills, it was put that Craig Hills did that because Roland Griffiths at that time was coming aggressively towards Craig Hills. In fact, a viewing of the video indicates that that is not so. At the time at which Craig Hills assumed what I described as the boxer stance, Roland Griffiths was still standing at the bar. A short period intervened between Craig Hills adopting that stance, and Roland Griffiths coming forward. In his address, Mr Drake submitted to me that Craig Hills was adopting a defensive stance. I do not agree. It seemed to me that it bore all the hallmarks of a fighter’s stance, in which he was continuing his invitation, directed to Eddie Meulenbrock, to fight. That conclusion is consistent with Ms Marshall’s evidence that throughout this incident that was precisely what Craig Hills was verbally endeavouring to persuade Eddie Meulenbrock to do.
There then followed a blurred sequence, which is difficult to decipher from the CCTV footage, because a number of matters happened involving a lot of people in close proximity. However, what seems to be clear enough is that as Craig Hills shaped up to Eddie Meulenbrock, Roland Griffiths for one reason or another came forward between them. Karen Hills can then be seen rapidly coming down the bar, around the group and intervening, and forcing Roland Griffiths away from that point. As that occurred, whilst it is not one hundred per cent clear, in my view, I am satisfied from the video and, indeed, from the evidence of Ms Marshall, that Craig Hills struck Eddie Meulenbrock. Ms Marshall said in her evidence‑in‑chief that he landed at least two punches; in cross‑examination she said it was once. My best viewing of the CCTV footage disclosed to me that he threw three punches, with at least two landing being directed at the upper body or the face.
A scuffle then ensued. Eddie Meulenbrock can be seen trying to restrain Craig Hills from the front, and the two men were grappling. It is at that point that Karen Hills joined in also, trying, as I interpret it, to attack Eddie Meulenbrock. It is while the three of them were grappling that Eddie worked his way around to the back of Craig Hills, restrained Craig Hills’s arms behind his back and wrestled him towards, as one looks at the counter, the right‑hand side of it. As Eddie was doing that, Karen Hills grabbed Eddie Meulenbrock’s hair, and was pulling his hair back so that his neck was almost fully extended.
It was then that Kylie Meulenbrock deposited her handbag behind the counter and attacked Karen Hills, striking her to the face with a forceful punch with her right fist, causing Karen Hills to lose her grip on Eddie Meulenbrock. Eddie Meulenbrock retained his grip around Craig Hills, who, it would seem, did not struggle at that point, and managed to pull him around the side of the bar and subdue him.
In the meantime, Kylie Meulenbrock moved to the left‑hand corner of the bar and picked up a bar stool and held it with the legs in front of her. Ms Randazzo submitted she did so in order to attack, or could be perceived to have done so in order to attack, Karen Hills. I do not agree. I am satisfied from the evidence, and from the video, that she picked the stool up in a defensive gesture, because she apprehended that she might suffer a retaliatory attack from Karen Hills, whom she had punched to the face a short time prior. Karen Hills in any event grabbed the legs of the chair and wrested it off Kylie Meulenbrock, and the two women grappled. In that grappling, Kylie Meulenbrock was holding Karen Hills’s hair and Karen Hills was holding the front of Kylie’s shirt. At that time Rebecca Gatt intervened and broke the two women up and stopped the fighting. I commend Ms Gatt for her sensible and, indeed, somewhat courageous behaviour in doing that.
Pausing there, it was put to me that, in fact, the evidence discloses that it was Mr Roland Griffiths who precipitated the fracas, and who was responsible for any violence conducted by Craig Hills. In my view, there is no evidence to bear out that proposition. As I stated, in fact, a clear viewing of the CCTV footage shows that Craig Hills adopted what I described as the boxer’s or fighter’s stance before Roland Griffiths moved away from the bar, and, as I have already stated, I do not accept that it was a defensive stance, but, rather, it was a plain invitation to Eddie Meulenbrock to have a fist fight with him.
It was after that that Roland Griffiths became caught up in the melee, and Karen Hills extracted him from it. I have been told by Mr Drake that in the course of that melee Craig Hills was struck to the eye, and he now has a black eye. I do not have any evidence as to how or when in the sequence of events that occurred, and indeed for me to make any finding in relation to that would be mere speculation.
I do observe that subsequently, when Eddie Meulenbrock was restraining Craig Hills by the arm, and at about the time Kylie Meulenbrock punched Karen Hills, Roland Griffiths saw fit to take a glass from the counter of the bar and keep it in his right hand. At one stage, he can be seen with that glass in his right hand moving towards Kylie Meulenbrock and Karen Hills, when the two women were struggling. Chronologically it would seem to me that his behaviour in doing that did not play any part in causing or escalating the violence. That said, however, the conduct of Roland Griffiths in doing that is a matter of grave concern to me. Clearly, that type of conduct has the risk about it of causing grave danger to the physical well‑being of other persons. Roland Griffiths was not called to give evidence, and he has not been given the opportunity to answer to the criticism, which I am making of him; however, his conduct, I think, is plain from the video and it would be remiss of me not to express criticism of him. I am also concerned about the conduct ascribed to Roland Griffiths as described by Rebecca Gatt. As I have stated, I accept her description of his conduct as accurate, but I believe she is wrong in her sequence as to when it occurred.
I make it plain in this court that throughout this trial any behaviour by Roland Griffiths, or anyone else, which is antagonistic to any of the accused, will be dealt with peremptorily by me. If anyone sees fit to behave in that type of manner at all, then they will be excluded from this court building for the duration of the trial, and, further, may be dealt by me for contempt of court. I would ask that those observations be relayed to all relevant persons, including Mr Griffiths.
I return, then, to the first incident. It is clear from the facts, which I have found, that Craig Hills and Karen Hills were clearly the aggressors of the incident that transpired; that the aggression, both verbal and physical, was directed to Kylie Meulenbrock and to her father; that the aggression was directed verbally initially by Karen Hills towards Kylie Meulenbrock and to her father; that Craig Hills, in my view, adopted an intimidatory stance while standing next to Kylie Meulenbrock, by seeking to fight Eddie Meulenbrock, and by ultimately initiating the fight that occurred between the two men.
I also accept the evidence of Ms Marshall and from the video that there was no aggression, either verbal or physical, by Ms Meulenbrock or by her father, Eddie Meulenbrock. In saying that, I accept, and repeat, it was entirely unwise for them to enter the hotel and to remain there. I consider that the criticisms that have been levelled at them for doing so in cross‑examination, in final addresses and indeed by myself are justified. However, that said, they did not say or do anything to provoke the incident. As I have stated, whilst the conduct of Roland Griffiths in taking possession of the glass was deplorable, nevertheless I do not accept that he played any role in triggering or escalating the violence that occurred.
I turn, then, to what conclusions I should draw in terms of the application by the prosecution. In relation to the question whether there has been a breach of bail, it is clear that the conditions in the bail bond are infelicitously phrased. However, the intention of the conditions in each bail bond was to ensure that each of the accused would remain away from their co‑accused and, in particular, from Ms Meulenbrock. That condition had particular point in this case, given the unchallenged evidence elicited in cross‑examination during the course of this application that there is a great degree of antagonism between, on the one hand, the camp of Karen and Craig Hills and, on the other hand, the Meulenbrock camp.
In my view, the conduct of Craig Hills in deliberately standing very close to Kylie Meulenbrock at the beginning of the incident was a breach of that condition. There was no reason for him to do that. He would not have been in breach of the condition, if he had lawfully remained where he was with his sister at the other end of the bar. His conduct in doing that, in my view, was a breach of that condition.
Karen Hills did not physically approach Ms Meulenbrock until the fracas itself occurred, and when that happened, she engaged firstly with Roland Griffiths and then with Eddie Meulenbrock. She did verbally direct aggressive comments towards Kylie Meulenbrock, but those comments themselves do not, in my view, constitute a breach of the condition of her bail. Thus, I would not uphold the submission that her behaviour in relation to the first incident constituted such a breach.
I turn, then, to the second and third grounds relied upon by the prosecution in relation to each of the two accused. The incident that occurred in the Metropolitan hotel was particularly serious. Both Karen and Craig Hills instigated aggressive and violent conduct in a public place. It is clear that the conduct was designed to intimidate Ms Meulenbrock and her family. While, at that time, Ms Meulenbrock had not become a Crown witness, nevertheless, as has become clear in this application, both Craig and Karen Hills knew that the statement that she had made to the police implicated them in the events of 9 December 2008.
I must say that it is extraordinary that two people who are on bail, Craig and Karen Hills, would see fit to display such wanton aggression towards a co‑accused in a public place right on the morning of their trial, and about one hour before their trial was about to commence. The circumstances in which that aggression was displayed, involved the manifestation of a troubling level of antagonism by Craig and Karen Hills towards Kylie Meulenbrock. In my view, given that level of antagonism and the way in which it was manifested throughout the incident, I am driven to the conclusion that there is an unacceptable risk that if they remain at liberty, that they will interfere with Kylie Meulenbrock as a witness, and there is also an unacceptable risk that they will be offend by indulging in the same type of conduct towards her or those associated with her during this trial.
In reaching those conclusions, I can turn fairly briefly to the second incident. That incident is alleged to have occurred, as I say, at 11 am on the steps of Owen Dixon Chambers East. The background to it was that the trial was mentioned before me at 10.30 in the morning. Mr Hughan of counsel appeared for Ms Meulenbrock. Karen Hills attended, but Craig Hills did not attend at the mention because he was still, as I understand it, being spoken to in relation to the incident at the Metropolitan hotel. After Mr Horgan announced the course which was to be adopted in relation to Ms Meulenbrock, I stood Ms Meulenbrock’s plea down to 2.15 pm, as I had another matter which I had to deal with during the morning. I adjourned the trial of the other four accused, including Karen and Craig Hills, to the next day, 8 April.
It was what followed me standing the matter down that constituted the second incident. The key witness to that incident was Mr Greg Hughan. Ms Meulenbrock gave brief evidence. Mr Hughan was cross‑examined at some length by Mr Desmond; nevertheless, and despite the matters raised by Mr Desmond, I consider Mr Hughan to have been an impressive witness. I thought he was very conscientious and was careful indeed to ensure that he only stated to the court that which he had either seen or heard.
Mr Hughan’s evidence is that after the case was stood down, he and Kylie Meulenbrock and her father Eddie Meulenbrock were in a conference room outside this court to about 11 am. Roland Griffiths was in the foyer, although I think he did enter the conference room from time to time. During that period Mr Hughan saw Karen Hills in the lobby walking to and fro. I interpolate that there is no evidence that at that point Karen Hills did anything untoward. Mr Hughan decided that his group should then proceed to Owen Dixon Chambers, and he thought it prudent that they exit via the William Street entrance, in order to avoid them coming into contact with Karen Hills.
As Mr Hughan and his group, which consisted then of his solicitor Mr Andrew George, Kylie Meulenbrock, Eddie Meulenbrock and Roland Griffiths, left this building and were standing on the footpath on the east side of William Street, Mr Hughan saw Karen Hills standing on the opposite side. In order to avoid taking his group across in her path, Mr Hughan decided that he would walk his group north to the Lonsdale Street lights, and then cross and enter the Owen Dixon Chambers complex via the entrance to Owen Dixon Chambers West on Lonsdale Street. For that purpose, he and his group walked north on the east side of William Street. As they did so, Mr Hughan noticed Karen Hills also walking north on the west side parallel to them. It was Mr Hughan’s perception that, by doing so, Ms Hills was either shadowing or mirroring their movements. Mr Hughan then noticed that there were two security vans parked outside left of Owen Dixon Chambers. As Karen Hills walked behind them, he lost sight of her. He decided it might be more prudent to enter Owen Dixon Chambers east behind those vans, using the cover of them. Accordingly, his group walked across William Street to the steps of Owen Dixon Chambers East. Mr Hughan then was behind his group.
As Mr Hughan walked to the top of the steps before entering the doors of Owen Dixon Chambers, he saw Karen Hills a few metres north of the entrance, walking back south towards his group. Mr Hughan told his group to continue towards the bank inside the building. Mr Hughan remained standing at the top of the steps. He turned. At that time, Karen Hills stood very close to him. Mr Hughan raised his right arm like a stop signal, and said to her: “Stop and back away”. Karen Hills ignored that instruction, and remained where she was, and Mr Hughan repeated it on a number of occasions. During one of those occasions, Karen Hills responded to Mr Hughan, saying: “ask her about my fat lip”, indicating her bottom lip. Mr Hughan said that at that time Karen Hills appeared agitated, and she was not calm. She also said something else, which Mr Hughan was unable to decipher. He said that he and Karen Hills remained looking at each other for a period of about 30 seconds. Mr Hughan then called to the security guard inside Owen Dixon Chambers. There was a short delay before he could get the guard’s attention, but when he did so, Karen Hills then moved back, and proceeded north up William Street.
Ms Meulenbrock’s evidence was more limited. She, in fact, only saw Karen Hills moving north up William Street. She did not see Karen Hills turn around and come back south. I do not think that Ms Meulenbrock’s evidence contradicts Mr Hughan’s evidence, but, rather indeed, supports his evidence that prior to Karen Hills coming back towards Owen Dixon Chambers as described by Mr Hughan, Karen Hills had, in fact, been going north.
In relation to the second incident, I am prepared to give Karen Hills the benefit of the doubt, that she was not deliberately shadowing or mirroring the movements of Mr Hughan’s group as they moved north up William Street. I consider Mr Hughan made a reasonable perception that she was doing so, but he might have been wrong. However, I am satisfied that after Mr Hughan and his group crossed William Street and entered Owen Dixon Chambers East, Karen Hills deliberately sought to approach the group, in order to speak to Kylie Meulenbrock, and that she was precluded from doing so when Mr Hughan intervened. Mr Hughan’s evidence, in my view, was clear on that point, that Karen Hills had been previously turning north and then she came back to speak to them about the topic as to what had occurred earlier in the morning. She was then agitated in her demeanour.
In my view, what occurred on the steps of Owen Dixon Chambers was a breach of the condition of bail of Karen Hills. If that had been the only incident, then I would not consider revoking her bail, but I might have tightened the conditions of her bail. However, her conduct in doing so does compound the conduct, which I have found she engaged in at the Metropolitan Hotel earlier, and increases my concern as to what might occur in relation to her behaviour directed to Kylie Meulenbrock, if she were left at large.
I turn, then, as to what I should do about this. In my view, given the findings, there are sound grounds to revoke bail. I have the ordinary reluctance of a trial judge to revoke bail, unless it is strictly necessary to do so. There are advantages of accused being on bail, and they are entitled to the presumption of innocence, and their liberty, unless and until proven guilty. However, as I stated, the conduct at the Metropolitan Hotel was particularly serious. If I were to leave Karen and Craig Hills at large, in my view, there is an unacceptable and realistic risk that interference would occur with Ms Meulenbrock, and indeed offences of violence would occur in relation to her and her family.
On the exercise of my exercise, Ms Randazzo put two matters to me; first, that Karen Hills has a 3‑year‑old son, who is very attached to her. I accept that he is and I accept that it would be a matter of real hardship to both of them to be separated. I accept that Kyle’s father is not around; however, it was not put that there was no one at all who could look after Kyle in the meantime.
I have also had matters put to me relating to Ms Hills’s health. It appears that she has sometimes been suffering from seizures. They have been investigated, and fortunately the diagnosis of epilepsy has been excluded. She has been prescribed, and is taking, Valium medication three times a day, the dosage I am informed is 5 mg. It would seem clear both from the medication prescribed, and also from the report of the psychologist, Mr Ball, that that medication is addressed to an anxiety condition suffered by Ms Hills. It is, in my view, most important that she continue to take that medication and have it available to her.
I have read the report of Mr Ball, particularly the salient features of it in so far as they impact on this application, and they do not disclose any medical ground on which I ought not to place Ms Hills in custody during this trial. However, I repeat, that, given what is stated in the report and given the medication which Ms Hills is taking, it is most important that when she goes into custody, she be afforded the opportunity to have the medication as prescribed by her general practitioner, and that also she is afforded such medical attention as is necessary to address her underlying anxiety condition. That said, I do not consider that the matters put to me by Ms Randazzo, are sufficient to dissuade me from revoking bail of Ms Hills. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion I have no alternative than to revoke the bail of Craig Hills and Karen Hills.
0
0
0