Director of Public Prosecutions v Wren Sean

[2022] ACTSC 341

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Wren Sean

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 341

Hearing Date:

7 December 2022

DecisionDate:

7 December 2022

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

(a)  Bail is refused.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail application – where offender subject to good behaviour order – where fresh offences committed while in the community – where offender seeks bail to attend residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation – where risks to the community overwhelm the application

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 1992 (ACT) ss 22, 23

Parties:

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Wren Sean (a pseudonym) (Applicant)

Representation:

Counsel

M Howe (ACT Director of Public Prosecutions)

P Bevan (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Bevan & Co

File Number:

SCC 247 of 2021

SCC 248 of 2021

Elkaim J:

1․The applicant is seeking bail pursuant to s 22 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act). His application was filed on 1 December 2022. It is supported by an affidavit of Ms Arefin affirmed on 29 November 2022.

2․The application is opposed. The DPP relies on an affidavit of Ms Narouz affirmed on 5 December 2022.

3․The background is as follows: the applicant is 18, although the offences were committed when he was a young person.

4․On 26 April 2022, the applicant plead guilty to a charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. He then went on to face a murder trial but was acquitted of that charge. On 9 August 2022 he was sentenced by McCallum CJ to a term of imprisonment which was immediately suspended, provided he enter into a good behaviour order for 24 months. He entered into the order and was released into the community.

5․The applicant returned to custody on 13 September 2022 as a result of a number of offences which he had committed while under the good behaviour order. These offences included burglary, assault causing actual bodily harm, theft, destroying property and reprisal against a person involved in a proceeding. The applicant pleaded guilty to these offences on 7 October 2022 and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentencing.

6․The sentencing is to take place on 3 February 2023. The intent of the bail application is to allow the applicant to attend a residential rehabilitation program to deal with his admitted addiction to drugs and alcohol.

7․Considering that a primary motivation for the Court in respect of young persons, although he is not technically a young person at the moment, is rehabilitation, the purpose for which he seeks bail creates a prima facie powerful case.

8․As to whether s 23 of the Bail Act applies, I do not think I need to answer that question because I will proceed as if it did.

9․The initial impression in favour of rehabilitation and bail is defeated in this case by a number of factors. These include the following:

(a)The applicant has a history of failing to appear at Court.

(b)The applicant has been in breach of bail previously.

(c)The offences for which he is to be sentenced next year are serious. This is particularly so in relation to the reprisal charge. This is combined with information held by the police that the applicant has made other threats of revenge on persons involved in his Supreme Court trial.

(d)The offences were committed in breach of a good behaviour order.

(e)The offences include very violent actions.

10․The combination of the above factors is such that a full-time sentence of imprisonment is a real possibility.

11․There is a real danger in my view of further offences being committed while on bail. I appreciate that the idea is that he will be in residential rehabilitation but the rehabilitation centre is not a prison and he would be able to leave it if he wished too.

12․He has nowhere to go in the ACT, as his parents now live in NSW.

13․I think the risks to the community overwhelm the application.

14․Accordingly, bail is refused.

I certify that the preceding fourteen [14] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: