Director of Public Prosecutions v Matthews

[2022] ACTSC 315

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Director of Public Prosecutions v Matthews

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 315

Hearing Date:

16 November 2022

DecisionDate:

16 November 2022

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [10]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – where understanding of facts has changed substantially since time of offending – circumstances of mental health have changed substantially since the time of offending – applicant subject to psychiatric treatment orders – significant period of time spent in pre-sentence custody – application for bail not opposed – bail granted

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 9C, 22(2)

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 25

Parties:

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Thomas Matthews (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

B Morrisroe (DPP)

T Taylor (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Hugo Law Group (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 281 of 2021

SCC 282 of 2021

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․Mr Matthews has just been arraigned on two charges of causing grievous bodily harm by a negligent act, contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). He has pleaded guilty to both of those charges. He now seeks bail.

2․The context in which this occurs is that he has now spent 495 days in custody on remand in relation to three counts of attempted murder and three counts of driving a motor vehicle at police. Those charges will not be proceeded with and the prosecution will file a notice declining to proceed in relation to those charges. Further, backup charges not included in any indictment are also likely to be ultimately dismissed. He will face only those charges to which he has pleaded guilty.

3․Section 9C of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) may apply in the circumstances of this case. That provision applies to, relevantly, a charge of murder. In this case, the charge is attempted murder. It is not necessary to reach any conclusion as to its application. If it did apply, then the restriction in s 9C(2) is that the court must not grant bail to a person unless satisfied that special or exceptional circumstances exist favouring a grant of bail.

4․If the provision applied, then I would be satisfied that, at the very least, special circumstances existed, namely that the charges that triggered the operation of s 9C, specifically the charges of attempted murder, are not to be pursued by the prosecution. The prosecution has indicated that it will file a notice declining to proceed in relation to those charges and that there is a new indictment which does not include charges which would trigger the operation of 9C. As a consequence, if 9C applies, then notwithstanding that, I am satisfied that I am able to consider the question of bail.

Background

5․The events giving rise to the charges against Mr Matthews occurred on 11 July 2021. Mr Matthews was driving a car which struck three police officers who were undertaking an unrelated traffic stop. The case statement originally filed indicated that one of the components of the case alleging that he intended to kill the three police officers or alternatively to drive at those police officers being reckless about their safety was that he was a supporter of an Islamic caliphate and had a desire to kill police officers in pursuit of the establishment of such a caliphate.

6․The factual understanding of the parties has altered substantially since that document was prepared. Although the statement of facts which will form the basis of the sentencing has not yet been agreed, I am told that it will not contain allegations of an intent to kill police officers due to the support of an Islamic caliphate. Instead, I am told that there is evidence that the offender was suffering the effects of an excessively high dose of medication which he was prescribed for schizophrenia and that this had an effect of impairing his driving. I am also told that there is evidence that the offender fully applied the brake prior to the collision occurring.

Consideration

7․The negligent acts which form the basis of the plea of guilty involve Mr Matthews driving when he knew he was feeling unwell as a result of the medication that he was taking and steering his vehicle to the left in the circumstances that he did. It is therefore clear that the nature of the case against him has very substantially changed and that the different complexion on the facts casts a different light on the appropriateness of a grant of bail.

8․The material before the court discloses that two months prior to the incident, Mr Matthews had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and subsequently been somewhat uncooperative in relation to compulsory psychiatric treatment. His psychiatric treatment has now been stabilised and compulsory psychiatric treatment orders which have been in place will tomorrow be continued. He has the support of his parents and is able to live with them. The prosecution does not oppose the grant of bail subject to certain conditions which are agreed. In those circumstances, I consider it appropriate to grant bail. It appears to me that the circumstances surrounding the factual allegations against him and the circumstances of his mental health have changed substantially since the time of the offending.

9․So far as the consideration in s 22(2) of the Bail Act is concerned, that is the prospect of a sentence of imprisonment, there has been a significant change in the understanding of the facts and in light of the fact that he has spent already 495 days in custody, the prospects of him being required to serve a further period in custody are, so far as it is able to be assessed in this preliminary way, low. As a consequence of the change in his mental health treatment, in my view, the risk of further offending prior to his sentencing is low and that is influenced by the support that he presently has from his parents.

Orders

10․The orders of the Court are therefore:

1.Direct the preparation of a pre-sentence report including an intensive corrections assessment.

2.Note that the matter is listed for sentence on 28 February 2023.

3.Note that the backup charges on the file SCC 281 of 2021 are to be dealt with on the sentencing date.

4.Grant bail to the offender on the following conditions:

(a)reside at [redacted];

(b)not to drive or be in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle;

(c)comply with the terms of the psychiatric treatment order made by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (including any medication regime proposed as part of the treatment order);

(d)schedule and attend weekly appointments with his general practitioner for the purposes of his mental health and medication regime being closely monitored;

(e)advise Senior Constable Aaron Truman of any change in his treating general practitioner and provide him that practitioner's name and contact details; and

(f)not to approach any members of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Defence Force without reasonable cause.

I certify that the preceding ten [10] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop.

Associate:

Date: 6 December 2022