R v BG

[2015] NSWSC 2098

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v BG [2015] NSWSC 2098

Hearing dates:

30 June 2015

Date of orders:

30 June 2015

Decision date:

30 June 2015

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Before:

Beech-Jones J

Decision:

Bail application granted

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – bail – release application – applicant 14 years of age – charged with robbery offences – bail breached – risk not unacceptable – bail granted

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

BG (Applicant) 
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Representation:

Solicitors:

 

Ms R Rodger (Applicant) 

  Mr D Curran 
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s):

2015/00185450

Publication restriction:

Nil

EX TEMPore Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The applicant for bail faces four charges which are currently before the Bidura Children’s Court. They all involve either robbery or stealing from the person, whether in company, and sometimes with a weapon.

2. The first two sets of charges involve him allegedly participating with a group of other youths in robbing taxi drivers using violence. The third charge involves what the Crown Prosecutor colloquially but accurately described as a street mugging. The fourth set of charges involves robbery from some young children. Needless to say all the charges are extremely serious.

3. The applicant is fourteen years of age. Prior to the first offence he had no exposure to the criminal justice system. He was granted bail on the first two offences but then arrested on 15 April 2015 following an investigation into the third and fourth offences. It goes without saying that the third and fourth offences involve a serious breach of the bail conditions on the first two.

4. He has now spent almost two and a half months in custody. It is clearly an extremely serious matter to detain a 14-year-old boy for any period. I do not think the Court has any option but to proceed on the basis that a fourteen year old who broke his bail and has now spent two and a half months away from his family, must be given a further chance.

5. In terms of the relevant forms of risk I do not consider that the risk of his non-appearance at court to be relevantly unacceptable. He does have strong family connections in the Daceyville area as well as broader support from the local indigenous community. I think one way or another they would combine to get him to court.

6. Of course the relevant unacceptable risk is that he will commit a further serious offence which involves a risk of danger to the community including either taxi drivers, members of the public or even young people.

7. That said, the relevant bail conditions that would be put in place to an extent can I think mitigate that risk. Further, I think he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in terms of an assessment as to what two and a half months in custody would bring to bear upon any decision he made to commit further offences.

8. Accordingly, there will be a grant of bail. Further, it is necessary to vary the existing bail conditions concerning the first and second offences so that all the bail terms are consistent.

9. Accordingly, in relation to the charges listed on H57060311 and on charge sheet H57299547 bail will be varied to allow the applicant to reside at X XXXXX XXXXX XXX, XXXXX XXXXX instead of XX XXXX XXXXX X, XXXXX XXXXX X.  

10. In relation to the charges listed on H57844459 and H57783750 there will be a grant of bail on the following conditions.

11. FOR BAIL CONDITIONS SEE COURT FILE

**********

Decision last updated: 08 September 2016