JM v R

Case [2015] NSWSC 978 22 July 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
Hearing dates: 25 June 2015
Date of orders: 22 July 2015
Decision date: 22 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Bail granted. See [135] for conditions.

Catchwords: BAIL – charge of murder – show cause requirement – assessment of strength of Crown case – self-defence raised by evidence in Crown case – where applicant young – where applicant never previously in custody – where applicant has history of breaching bail – whether undesirable length in custody awaiting trial – applicant has shown cause as to why detention unjustified – whether unacceptable risk if bail granted – assessment of bail concerns – any concern mitigated by bail conditions – conditional bail granted
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Mental Health Act 2007
Cases Cited: Chau v DPP [1995] 37 NSWLR 639
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration [1992] HCA 64; (1992) 176 CLR 1
Clumpoint v DPP [2005] QCA 43
DPP (Cth) v Germakian [2006] NSWCA 275
DPP (NSW) v Campbell [2015] NSWCCA 173
DPP (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
M v R [2015] NSWSC 138
R v Cain (No.1) [2001] NSWSC 116; (2001) 121 A Crim R 365
R v Kugor [2015] NSWCCA 14
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: JM (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
S Boland (Applicant)
P Bakalidis (Crown)

File Number(s): 2015/87829
Publication restriction: Order that the names of the applicant, the deceased and the witnesses to the events and any material identifying them be suppressed until the conclusion of the trial of the applicant, or further order of the Court, whichever first occurs.

__________________________________________________________________

Judgment

On 23 March 2015, the applicant, JM, was arrested and charged with the stabbing murder of the deceased, AB. He was taken into custody at that time.
On 15 April 2015, JM made an application pursuant to s 8 of the Bail Act 2013 (“the Act”) to be released on bail.
The Crown opposed that application. It was heard on 25 June 2015. The Court reserved its decision. The bulk of material tendered, and the importance of this judgment to the parties, has meant that the preparation of these reasons and delivery of this judgment has taken somewhat longer than would ordinarily be acceptable. Nevertheless, the application has been dealt with as expeditiously as possible: s 71 of the Act.

Non-Publication Order

It will be necessary in this judgment to consider the nature and strength of the Crown case against the applicant. That is to be done by reference to the contents of statements provided by the Crown. Some of that material may not ultimately be admitted in evidence at the applicant’s trial.
In order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and in order to ensure a fair…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading JM v R

Details

AGLC: JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
Case: [2015] NSWSC 978
Decision Date: 22 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JM v R involves a young applicant, JM, who is charged with murder. JM applied for bail, and the Crown opposed the application. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues were whether JM had shown sufficient cause to justify bail, whether the strength of the Crown's case was such that it would likely lead to a conviction, and if there were any unacceptable risks if JM were granted bail. The court also considered whether any concerns about JM being granted bail could be mitigated by appropriate bail conditions.

The court examined the strength of the Crown's case, including the evidence that pointed towards self-defence, which was raised by the Crown itself. The court assessed the likelihood of JM being convicted if the case went to trial. JM's age, lack of prior custodial history, and previous breaches of bail were also taken into account. The court determined that JM had shown sufficient cause as to why his detention was unjustified, considering his age and the potential for an unacceptable length of time in custody before the trial. The court also considered the risks associated with JM being granted bail and concluded that these could be mitigated with appropriate bail conditions.

In light of the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that JM had demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant bail. The court acknowledged the strength of the Crown's case but also recognised the possibility of self-defence, which warranted a trial. Considering JM's age, lack of prior custodial history, and the potential for an unacceptable delay in the trial, the court decided that conditional bail was appropriate. The court imposed strict bail conditions to mitigate any risk associated with JM being granted bail.

The final orders of the court were that JM be granted conditional bail, subject to specific conditions designed to ensure JM's appearance at trial and to mitigate any risk associated with his release. The court set out these conditions in detail, emphasising the importance of JM adhering to them.

Orders