Lock v The Queen - [2016] NSWSC 1705

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lock v R [2016] NSWSC 1705
Hearing dates: 30 November 2016
Decision date: 02 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
The release application is refused.

Catchwords:
RELEASE APPLICATION – alleged murder of two-year-old child – trial listed in April 2017 – whether applicant has shown cause that his detention is not justified – where three-year period since between charge and trial - cause not shown

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 16A, 16B, 17(2), 74
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 66A(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 91

Cases Cited:
A1 v R; A2 v R [2016] NSWSC 1288
Chau v DPP (1995) 37 NSWLR 639
Chu Keng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1; [1992] HCA 64
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
Hamze v R [2015] NSWCCA 104
JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
R v Cain (No 1) [2001] NSWSC 116
R v Farrell [2016] NSWSC 1278
R v Lock [2015] NSWSC 1865

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Thomas Lock (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G Scragg (Applicant)
Ms R Sharma (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Jeffreys & Associates (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/00314492; 2014/00131951

Judgment

On 1 May 2014, Thomas Lock (“the applicant”) was charged with the following offences:

That between 7pm on 20 April 2014 and 2:15am on 21 April 2014 at Coffs Harbour he did murder TM, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

That between 7pm on 20 April 2014 and 2:15am on 21 April 2014 at Coffs Harbour he did have sexual intercourse with TM who was at the time under the age of ten years, namely, of the age of two years, contrary to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act.

He was refused bail and has remained in custody since that date.
Both of the offences with which the applicant was initially charged are “show cause” offences within the meaning of s 16B the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). This means that the Court must refuse bail unless the applicant can establish on the balance of probabilities that his detention is not justified: s 16A of the Bail Act. To put this another way, the applicant is required to show cause as to why his detention is not justified.
On 1 December 2015, the applicant made a release application under s 49 of the Bail Act before Campbell J. On 9 December 2015, his Honour refused that application: R v Lock [2015] NSWSC 1865. His Honour found that the applicant had not shown cause. His Honour otherwise found that the proposed bail conditions would have ameliorated the identified bail concerns of risk of non-appearance and of slight risk to individuals and the community, had cause been shown.
O 4 April 2016, the applicant was discharged at committal in relation to the child sexual assault charge. On that date, he was…

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 Lock v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lock v The Queen [2016] NSWSC 1705
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1705
Decision Date: 02 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Lock, sought release on bail pending the outcome of his trial for the alleged murder of a two-year-old child. The trial was set for April 2017. The Court of Appeal considered whether Lock had demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant his release from custody, given the three-year period that had elapsed between his charge and the scheduled trial date. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant had effectively shown cause for his release that would demonstrate the detention was no longer justified.

The Court of Appeal addressed the requirement to show cause by examining the factors outlined in the relevant statutes and case law. It considered the length of time Lock had been detained, the nature and gravity of the offence, the likelihood of the applicant absconding, and the potential impact of continued detention on his right to a fair trial. The court held that Lock had not provided any compelling reasons for his release that would outweigh the need for his continued detention, particularly given the seriousness of the charges and the potential risk to the community. The Court of Appeal was also mindful of the importance of ensuring that the administration of justice is not unduly delayed.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed Lock's application for bail. The court found that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause to warrant his release from custody. The appeal was dismissed, and Lock remained in custody pending his trial.

Orders