Director of Public Prosecutions v Larkham

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Larkham
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 365
Hearing Date:	21 December 2022
DecisionDate:	21 December 2022
Before:	McCallum CJ
Decision:	(1) Pursuant to s 19(1)(b) of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) vary the conditions of bail granted by Loukas-Karlsson J so as to: (a) Amend condition 9 by deleting the words “her father’s residence, [REDACTED]” and replace those words with “her mother’s residence, [REDACTED] and to remain at those premises unless in the company of her mother, Natalie Kerr” (b) Delete condition 10. (c) Include condition 14 that Ms Larkham undertake such further rehabilitation as recommended by the retreat rehabilitation centre by way of outpatient program to be participated in electronically.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – Bail Variation – where condition requires accused to reside with father at completion of residential rehabilitation program – where accused’s relationship with father has deteriorated
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 20B
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Grace Larkham (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel S Bagwanna (DPP) T Taylor (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Hugo Law Group (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 252 of 2022 SCC 253 of 2022

McCALLUM CJ:

This is an application to vary bail granted by Loukas-Karlsson J on 10 November 2022. Her Honour was persuaded to grant bail on that occasion on the basis that the applicant was to attend a residential or inpatient rehabilitation program in Queensland and, upon completion of the residential component of the program, then to reside with her father in Queensland.

In the intervening period, the applicant’s relationship with her father has deteriorated. She has informed the Court, displaying a measure of insight into what she needs in order to maintain a path of constructive rehabilitation, that one concern she has is an unhealthy lifestyle that her father has, which includes his drinking heavily from time to time.

She is to be commended for displaying the insight that living in those circumstances would make her own rehabilitation considerably more difficult. Instead, she seeks to have bail varied pursuant to s 20B of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) so as to be allowed to reside with her mother in Canberra.

That carries its own risks as a bail consideration in that the previous grant of bail was intended to remove the applicant from the negative influences of her contacts in Canberra. Conversely, however, it is clear enough that living with her father has become untenable. Her mother offers to have her live with her and the applicant consents to a condition that she remain effectively under house arrest; that is, to reside at that residence unless in the company of her mother.

Based on the information I have received (albeit informally) today, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the variation sought.

Accordingly:

(1) Pursuant to s 19(1)(b) of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) vary the conditions of bail granted by Loukas-Karlsson J so as to:

(a) Amend condition 9 by deleting the words “her father’s residence, [REDACTED]” and replace those words with “her mother’s residence, [REDACTED] and to remain at those premises unless in the company of her mother, Natalie Kerr”

(b) Delete condition 10.

(c) Include condition 14 that Ms Larkham undertake such further rehabilitation as recommended by the retreat rehabilitation centre by way of outpatient program to be participated in electronically.

I certify that the preceding six [6] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Chief Justice McCallum.

Associate:

Date: 15 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory considered an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to vary bail conditions granted to Grace Larkham by Loukas-Karlsson J on 10 November 2022. Larkham had initially been granted bail on the condition that she reside with her father upon completing a residential rehabilitation program in Queensland. However, Larkham's relationship with her father had deteriorated, and she expressed concern that residing with him would hinder her rehabilitation due to his unhealthy lifestyle, including heavy drinking. Larkham sought to reside with her mother in Canberra instead, which carried its own risks as it might expose her to negative influences from her Canberra contacts. However, given the untenable nature of her relationship with her father, the court was satisfied that varying the bail conditions was appropriate. The court accepted Larkham's proposal to reside with her mother under strict conditions, including remaining at her mother's residence unless in the company of her mother, Natalie Kerr.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the bail conditions should be varied to allow Larkham to reside with her mother instead of her father, as initially stipulated. The court had to weigh the risks and benefits of the proposed variation, considering Larkham's deteriorating relationship with her father and her insight into the negative impact this would have on her rehabilitation. The court also needed to ensure that the variation did not expose Larkham to significant risks that could undermine the purposes of bail. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the proposed conditions sufficiently mitigated any risks associated with Larkham residing with her mother.

The court considered the evidence presented and concluded that varying the bail conditions was appropriate. Larkham had demonstrated insight into the difficulties she would face if she continued to live with her father, acknowledging the negative impact his unhealthy lifestyle would have on her rehabilitation. The court noted that Larkham's mother was willing to house her under strict conditions, including remaining at her residence unless accompanied by her mother. This arrangement aimed to balance the need to remove Larkham from the negative influences of her Canberra contacts while addressing the unsuitability of her living with her father. The court also accepted the recommendation for Larkham to participate in an outpatient rehabilitation program as a means of further rehabilitation. Therefore, the court decided to vary the bail conditions as sought by the applicant.

Pursuant to s 19(1)(b) of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), the court varied the conditions of bail granted by Loukas-Karlsson J. Condition 9 was amended to require Larkham to reside at her mother's residence unless in the company of her mother, Natalie Kerr. Condition 10 was deleted, and condition 14 was included, requiring Larkham to undertake further rehabilitation as recommended by the retreat rehabilitation centre through an electronic outpatient program. The court certified that the preceding six paragraphs were a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of McCallum CJ.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established