Godla v Director of Public Prosecutions

[2024] NSWCCA 221

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Godla v Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] NSWCCA 221

Hearing dates:

27 November 2024

Date of orders:

27 November 2024

Decision date:

27 November 2024

Before:

Hamill J
N Adams J
Sweeney J

Decision:

(1) Bail is varied to delete the reporting condition imposed by the Local Court on 14 October 2024.

(2) The application for variation of bail is otherwise dismissed.

(3) Direct the Registrar of this Court to notify the Officer in Charge of police at Parramatta, and the Registrar of the Parramatta Local Court that the reporting condition has been deleted.

(4) Confirm that Mr Godla is required to appear at the Downing Centre Local Court on 29 November 2024 and the Parramatta Local Court on 9 December 2024, and on such dates and places thereafter as required.

Catchwords:

BAIL – application to vary conditions of bail granted by Court of Criminal Appeal – self-represented litigant – application to dispense with bail – submissions inviting the court to review the applicant’s original conviction – court lacking in jurisdiction – applicantion to bring to an end all extant prosecutions for breaches of child protection register – court lacking such broad reaching power – application to dispense with bail rejected

BAIL – where Court of Criminal Appeal granted bail on conditions – where Local Court judge added a condition later that the applicant report to police each week – condition added days after this court settled on conditions – no explanation for Local Court’s decision to impose more onerous condition – statutory requirements as to conditions – necessary and appropriate – proportionate to circumstances of offence – reporting condition deleted

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 10, 20A, 49, 73, 74

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 271A.1

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Dheeraj Godla (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
S Traynor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/00399451

Publication restriction:

N/A

JUDGMENT

1. This judgment was delivered by Hamill J on behalf of all members of the Court at the conclusion of the hearing of the bail application

2. THE COURT: This morning the Court heard an application for variation of bail by Dheeraj Godla. The application is to vary the bail that was granted by the Court constituted by Garling, Cavanagh and Yehia JJ on 9 October 2024. Mr Godla is required to appear at the Downing Centre Local Court on 29 November 2024, that is, in two days’ time, and the Parramatta Local Court on 9 December 2024.

3. When the case was last before this Court, Mr Godla was also due to appear at the Parramatta Local Court on 17 October 2024. That was for a defended hearing of a charge or charges alleging that he failed to comply with obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW). He was found guilty of that matter and the case was adjourned for sentence on 9 December 2024. There are two similar offences listed for defended hearing on that day.

4. On 9 October 2024, the Court granted bail on the following conditions:

1. The applicant is to be of good behaviour.

2. The applicant is to appear at the Parramatta Local Court on 17 October 2024 and 9 December 2024 and at the Downing Centre Local Court on 29 November 2024, and thereafter as required.

3. The applicant is to live at 7-9 York Street, Sydney, and nowhere else. In the event that the applicant is not able to be accommodated at that address, the applicant must obtain alternative accommodation and apply for a variation of this bail at the Local Court within 72 hours of release.

4. The applicant is to comply with the obligations pursuant to the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW).

5. Those conditions were varied by the Local Court on 14 October 2024 to include a weekly reporting condition.

6. Mr Godla seeks an order under ss 10 and 49 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) that bail now be dispensed with. Currently, as we have said, he is required to appear at the Downing Centre Local Court this Friday, 29 November 2024, in relation to an offence or offences of failing to comply with reporting conditions under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act, and on 9 December 2024 for similar offences, either for sentence or for defended hearing.

7. This Court has jurisdiction to deal with the application because a bail decision was previously made by the Supreme Court by McNaughton J on 2 July 2024 (see s 67 of the Bail Act).

8. Mr Godla is self-represented and presented his case with firm and polite perseverance. However, many of the arguments he made gave rise to issues which are not amenable to this Court’s statutory jurisdiction, either under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) or the Bail Act. For example, he seeks to appeal against a decision made by Fagan J on 10 May 2019, when his Honour dismissed a summons seeking judicial review of his original conviction for indecent assault, by the Manly Local Court in 2016. This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal from that decision: see ss 5-6 of the Criminal Appeal Act.

9. Similarly, Mr Godla seeks an order that all extant prosecutions under the provisions of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act be brought to an end. Again, this Court has no such broad-ranging power.

10. The grounds upon which the variation of bail is sought are multifarious, but most have at their heart a complaint that Mr Godla ought not to be subject to the strictures of the Child Protection Register.

11. Mr Godla also seeks to travel to visit his ailing mother and to be released from the Register and any relevant bail conditions, so that he can see his children, from whom he has been estranged for many years.

12. Because he is currently subject to the Child Protection Register, any decision to allow him to travel overseas must be determined by an “appropriate officer” (see the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 271A.1). That section makes it an offence to travel overseas without such permission:

271A.1  Restrictions on overseas travel by certain registered offenders

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is an Australian citizen; and

(b) the person’s name is entered on a child protection offender register (however described) of a State or Territory; and

(c) the person has reporting obligations (however described) in connection with that entry on the register; and

(d) the person leaves Australia.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(2) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(a).

Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) a competent authority (within the meaning of section 12 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 or section 13 of the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005) has given permission (however described) for the person to leave Australia; or

(b) the reporting obligations of the person are suspended at the time the person leaves Australia.

Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see subsection 13.3(3).

13. After the Court raised the issue of jurisdiction with Mr Godla and heard arguments by both parties, it stood the matter down for two hours to consider the course it would take. During that time, Mr Godla sent an email in the following terms:

“Your Honors,

SORRY I could not make this submission, but please consider.

The court has jurisdiction:

1. To hear the original conviction – 2016

2. As well as the appeal from DCJ Williams, 4 Jan 24 - Non- registrable person as per CPORA 2000.

Under S 5 of Criminal Appeal Act

Thus, plead to quash conviction and close all matters, and allow to travel tomorrow.

regards,

Dheeraj Godla”

14. It will be seen that Mr Godla again asserts that the Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the original conviction in 2016. It does not.

15. Mr Godla also says the Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of Judge Williams on 4 January 2024. Again, this Court is not seized of any such jurisdiction.

16. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application to vary the bail. She submits that the application should be dismissed pursuant to s 73 of the Bail Act. That section provides that a Court may refuse to hear a bail application if it is satisfied that the application is frivolous or vexatious (s 73(a)) or is without substance or has no reasonable prospect of success (s 73(b)).

17. Mr Godla’s application is neither frivolous nor vexatious and it does have some substance. However, based on the material before the Court, it has very little prospect of success.

18. The Director also relied on s 74 which requires a Court to refuse to hear a further release application unless there are grounds for such an application:

74 Multiple release or detention applications to same court not permitted

(1)  A court that refuses bail for an offence, or that affirms a decision to refuse bail for an offence, after hearing a release application is to refuse to hear another release application made by the accused person for the same offence, unless there are grounds for a further release application.

(2)  A court that grants or dispenses with bail for an offence, or that affirms a decision to grant or dispense with bail for an offence, after hearing a detention application is to refuse to hear another detention application made by the prosecution for the same offence, unless there are grounds for a further detention application.

(3)  For the purposes of this section, the grounds for a further release application are—

(a)  the person was not legally represented when the previous application was dealt with and the person now has legal representation, or

(b)  material information relevant to the grant of bail is to be presented in the application that was not presented to the court in the previous application, or

(c)  circumstances relevant to the grant of bail have changed since the previous application was made, or

(d)  the person is a child and the previous application was made on a first appearance for the offence.

(4)  For the purposes of this section, the grounds for a further detention application are—

(a)  material information relevant to the grant of bail is to be presented in the application that was not presented to the court in the previous application, or

(b)  circumstances relevant to the grant of bail have changed since the previous application was made.

(5)  In this section, court does not include an authorised justice.

19. The reality is that the Court has heard the application. While it would perhaps be open to refuse to hear the application under either s 73 or s 74, we propose instead to deal with the application on its merits.

20. The conditions of bail granted by this Court are not unduly onerous. The conditions are calculated to mitigate any risk that Mr Godla will breach the condition of the Register. Further, the bail will only apply until the matters are finalised, which may be in the next few weeks or, at the latest, the next few months.

21. However, we are satisfied that the condition requiring Mr Godla to report to the police once a week is unnecessary and does not mitigate any risk that he will commit further offences. There was nothing put before this Court to explain why that condition was added by the Local Court to conditions so recently settled upon by three judges of this Court.

22. Section 20A of the Bail Act provides for restrictions on the imposition of bail conditions and, speaking generally, they are only to go as far as is reasonably necessary to address a bail concern and must be reasonable and proportionate to the offence for which bail is granted. They must be appropriate, and they must be no more onerous than necessary to address the bail concern in relation to which it is imposed.

23. Had the Court on 9 October 2024 thought a reporting condition was necessary and appropriate in the context of s 20A, it would have imposed such a condition. On this variation application, we would delete that condition.

24. However, in all of the circumstances the application to dispense with bail must be rejected.

Orders

25. For those reasons the Court makes the following orders:

1. Bail is varied to delete the reporting condition imposed by the Local Court on 14 October 2024.

2. The application for variation of bail is otherwise dismissed.

3. Direct the Registrar of this Court to notify the Officer in Charge of police at Parramatta, and the Registrar of the Parramatta Local Court that the reporting condition has been deleted.

4. Confirm that Mr Godla is required to appear at the Downing Centre Local Court on 29 November 2024 and the Parramatta Local Court on 9 December 2024, and on such dates and places thereafter as required.

26. Mr Godla also requested a pseudonym. We are not currently aware of any basis upon which such an order would be justified, and we propose at this stage to decline to make an order for a pseudonym.

**********

Decision last updated: 02 December 2024