Heenan v DPP

[2005] VSC 516

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1414 of 2005

PETER ALAN HEENAN	Applicant
v
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno  J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 December 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 December 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Heenan v DPP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 516

---

Criminal Law – remand for trial – application for bail – assault – aggravated burglary – attempted murder – s 4(a)(c) Bail Act1977– cause not shown.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Respondent	Mr A. Albert	Mr S. Carisbrooke Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an application for bail by Peter Alan Heenan who is facing trial on a number of counts of assault and like offences.  The alleged victim is his ex-wife.  Those counts include counts of aggravated burglary and attempted murder.  He has been committed for trial and has been unsuccessful in a bail application both before the Magistrates' Court at his committal and prior to that before this Court in March of this year.

1. Because he has been charged with the offence of aggravated burglary the provisions of s.4(4)(c) of the Bail Act1977 applies, which provides that the presumption in favour of bail which normally applies with respect to criminal offences does not apply in this case and the onus is on the applicant to show cause why his continued detention in prison is not justified.

1. In the course of his application Mr Heenan has pointed out that he has effected the development of a software package which he intends to market.   His solicitor,  Mr Efron,  has indicated that Mr Heenan is focused on that project and without his being free to concentrate on it, it will be very difficult for his son, Alan, to continue the business and launch that product in the way it ought to be launched.  Mr Heenan also asserts that he does not pose any risk to his ex-wife as he does not want to have anything further to do with her and does not know where she lives.  Mr Heenan says that he is no risk to his children.

1. In the course of his application Mr Heenan has produced a psychological report from  Eastern Access Community Health written by one Maria Romano, a psychologist with that service.  Ms Romano deals with the psychological state of both the victim in this case and the children of the marriage.  It is sufficient to say that the report suggests strongly that there should be no contact whatsoever between Mr Heenan and his children, at least, for the moment.  This opinion is not shared by Mr Heenan who claims that some of his children wish to see him.

1. An applicant in the position of Mr Heenan must show cause why his continued detention is unwarranted.   Nothing he has said, either in his affidavit or from the floor of the Court, gives the Court any comfortable reassurance that his ex-wife and children will not be at some risk if he is immediately released.  In the context of this case that is a very significant matter, particularly having regard to his ex-wife's allegations of serious domestic violence.  In this, and in other respects, the Crown case is substantial.  The one matter which does concern the Court however is  the length of time between the alleged date of the commission of these offences and the applicant's trial which may be  of the order of 15 months.  That is too long particularly as there is not a death involved where Coronial and other proceedings have to be undertaken.  The courts ought to be able to deal with these cases earlier.  But in this instance that is not the prosecution's fault.  It is ready to proceed so that the trial will almost certainly commence in March. 

1. Whilst Mr Heenan's business activities are important to him  anything he did between now and March would come to an immediate and abrupt halt if he were convicted of any of these offences which merited a gaol sentence.  In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that he has shown cause as to why his detention is not justified and accordingly the application for bail is dismissed.

---