Director of Public Prosecutions v Larkham

[2022] ACTSC 365

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:

1. 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. 

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

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

1. 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