In the matter of an application for bail by Christopher James Rowland
[2016] ACTSC 6
•11 January 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | In the matter of an application for bail by Christopher James Rowland |
Citation: | [2016] ACTSC 6 |
Hearing Date(s): | 11 January 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 11 January 2016 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | The application for bail is dismissed. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – bail – aggravated robbery – delay in sentencing – offender seeking rehabilitation – residential rehabilitation – entrenched drug habit – availability of rehabilitation programs in prison – likely lengthy term of imprisonment |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Christopher Rowland (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S Gul (Crown) Mr J Robertson (Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Lynch Solicitors (Defendant) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 246 of 2015 |
REFSHAUGE J:
Christopher James Rowland is a relatively young man, aged 23 years. On 25 June 2015, he entered the Woolworths Supermarket in Kambah in company with another male, both males having weapons on them; one, a pistol and one, a shortened rifle. They demanded money from the staff and stole $3,561.94, a not insignificant sum. After some considerable investigation, Mr Rowland was identified as one of those people and, on the 12 September 2015, police searched his house under a warrant. Mr Rowland told police that he did not commit the robbery.
Further investigations were conducted, including of various telephone records. These included records of telephone conversations with his mother in which he denied having a gun. Those telephone records showed apparent planning of the robbery and concealment of evidence.
Mr Rowland was arrested on the 23 September 2015 and appeared in the Magistrates Court. Bail was refused and he has been in custody since that time. On 13 November 2015, he entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court to the charge of aggravated robbery and was committed to this Court for sentence.
On 20 November 2015, a date for sentence was set of 6 April 2016, although that was later changed to 15 April 2016.
Subjective circumstances
Mr Rowland has an entrenched drug habit, as appears from a helpful and comprehensive report prepared by the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS). It shows that he commenced using cannabis when he was 17, has used amphetamines since he was about 18 or 19 and Ecstasy since he was 17, but only recreationally. It appears that his most problematic drug of choice is amphetamine.
He has not undertaken residential rehabilitation before. Indeed, the initial approach when he consulted CADAS was resistance to residential rehabilitation but he has reviewed his position since then and, in fact, applied for entry to a residential rehabilitation agency, namely Karralika Programs, and, having applied for entry to the Karralika Programs, he was accepted on the 23 December 2015. A bed was made available and that continues to be available, but, of course, it will not be held forever. As this Court has noted on a number of occasions, access in current times to residential rehabilitation is not easy as the demand is high and the supply is low.
As a result of that acceptance into Karralika, Mr Rowland has applied for bail so that he may spend the next few months between now and when he is sentenced attending to and progressing his drug rehabilitation. That application was opposed by the Crown.
Mr Rowland says that he was able to manage his addiction earlier in 2015. In fact he was getting his life together at that stage. He had enrolled in studies at the University of Canberra and completed the first six months. Unfortunately, things unravelled. He was the subject of a home invasion during which those persons who invaded his house demanded payment of $97,000.00.
It is unclear precisely how that demand arose but it is suggested that it is drug-related. As a result of that demand and no doubt the fear and concern at the home invasion, he relapsed into drug use. Instead of reporting the matter to police, he decided to engage in illegal activities in order to try and secure the money and it was in this context that the robbery occurred.
Thus, while it is a significant crime to which he has pleaded guilty, there is a substantial explanation for it, although I am not so sure that it necessarily reduces the culpability of the offence greatly. Nevertheless, it does show that it was not part of a long and entrenched continuing activity of robberies as regrettably is seen in these courts from time to time.
He also has a significant criminal history which shows a number of drug and alcohol related offences but also dishonesty offences. Worryingly, there is also an offence of unauthorised possession of a firearm. Nevertheless, this is by far the most serious of the offences that he has yet committed and it shows a very substantial increase in his level of criminal activity.
It is for that reason, perhaps, that the background is of significance. It is a matter of great regret and of concern to the court that he will have been in custody since the 13 November 2015 and will not be sentenced until 15 April 2016.
His status as a remand prisoner is one of significance because it denies him access to some of the facilities that are available to sentenced prisoners. The completion of the 12 month Karralika program would be relevant to sentence but that is a matter that can also be dealt with by the sentencing Judge if, as I anticipate is likely, application is made for a Deferred Sentence Order, which could be dealt with on sentencing and allow for some further rehabilitation if, having heard the full facts of the matter, it is thought that that is appropriate.
He has, while he is imprisoned, however, not completed the First Steps Program which is a program available to sentenced prisoners and remand prisoners. I am told that he is on the waiting list and will undertake that program when it becomes available to him. Again, it is a matter of regret to the Court that these programs are not available in a timely manner to all those who would benefit from them. He may still undertake it when available.
Consideration
The offence of aggravated robbery is a most serious offence. It is one that attracts a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 25 years and a substantial fine. Ordinarily, a gaol sentence would be inevitable but it is not totally inevitable and there are other sentencing possibilities. When firearms are involved, however, it is virtually inevitable that a lengthy sentence of some years is likely to be involved because of the seriousness of the offence and the attack on the community that an offence of this nature involves. That is, of course, a matter for the sentencing judge and not for me but it is relevant to understand that circumstance when considering the bail application.
The suggestion that Mr Rowland might benefit from a period at Karralika is one that I have adopted in other cases, although not necessarily ones involving offences as serious as this. It is a valuable use of the remand time for the prisoner and, if rehabilitation can be effected, for the community.
It is problematic criminologically, however, for that rehabilitation to occur before a lengthy period of imprisonment. It does not necessarily require a refusal of that opportunity, however, it is a matter that is relevant to the assessment of a bail application.
It is also relevant and to be remembered that we are fortunate in this jurisdiction that a residential rehabilitation program for drug-affected persons, namely the Solaris Therapeutic Community, can be undertaken while in custody which resolves some of the difficult tensions between the access to residential rehabilitation and the need for a retributive sentence for very serious offences.
It has been noted, and referred to in the CADAS report, that Mr Rowland has the support of his family. This is relevant for it reduces the risk of re-offending or absconding while on bail but it is not the only consideration that must be taken into account in considering the bail application. Indeed, the risk of re-offending and the risk of absconding or not attending to take his sentence were not the bases on which the Crown opposed the application.
The Crown opposed the application on the basis that the offence would inevitably result in a lengthy term of imprisonment and that it was inappropriate in those circumstances to grant bail. There is a long history of courts refusing to grant bail where a gaol term is inevitable or almost inevitable because of the risks that that imposed.
While Mr Rowland has some strong factors in favour of his bail application, the prospects of the sentence of imprisonment is a significant factor which the legislature has required the court to consider carefully and take into account.
In all the circumstances, it seems to me that the likelihood of that outcome is such that it would be inappropriate to grant bail. The capacity to engage in rehabilitation in prison, once he is sentenced, although initially with the First Steps Program, means that the opportunity for rehabilitation is not closed to him which would be a relevant factor and, in all the circumstances, I dismiss the application for bail.
| I certify that the preceding twenty-two [22] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge. Associate: Date: 3 February 2016 |
0
0
0