R v Celeski

Case [2016] ACTSC 140


HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Celeski

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 140

Hearing Date:

17 June 2016

DecisionDate:

17 June 2016

Reasons Date:

Before:

30 June 2016

Refshauge J

Decision:

1.   David Celeski is granted bail subject to the following conditions:

(a)   a person gives acceptable security for payment to the Territory of $10,000 if David Celeski fails to appear in court in accordance with his undertaking;

(b)   that he accept supervision by the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to urinalysis;

(c)         that he accept monitoring by the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS);

(d)    that he attend the SMART Recovery program twice a week and consent to the Officer-In-Charge of the program providing to the person supervising him and to CADAS any information reasonably required in relation to attendance and engagement in the program;

(e)    that he submit to urinalysis as and when directed;

(f)      that he report to the Officer-in-Charge of Queanbeyan Police Station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 8:00am and 8:00pm;

2.   That Monica Celeski is a suitable person for the purposes of condition (a) of the bail.

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW– JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – Accused’s circumstances –change in circumstances – special or exceptional circumstances – illness of family member – carer – drug use – rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 20B, 20C, 20C(2), 22, 23,

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 47
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B
Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth), s 11(1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), Pt 8

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 308, 311, 318, 403

Cases Cited:

Application for bail by Celeski [2016] ACTSC 101
Connors v The Queen [2014] ACTSC 252
Director of Public Prosecutions v Cozzi (2005) 12 VR 211
DPP v Tang (1995) 83 A Crim R 593
Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 92 FCR 168
Groth v Secretary; Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541
Harvey v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (2011) 220 A Crim R 186
In an Application for Bail by Connors [2015] ACTSC 407
In the Application for Bail by Massey [2008] ACTSC 145
In the Application for Bail by Rodriguez [2008] ACTSC 50
In the Matter of an Application for Bail by Seears [2013] ACTSC 187
Re application for bail by Breen (2009) 172 ACTR 21
R v Kelly [2000] 1 QB 198
R v McGrail [2016] ACTSC 142
R v Rubino [2012] ACTSC 157
R v Wilkins [2015] ACTSC 145
Sebbens v The Queen [2014] ACTSC 281

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

David Celeski (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S Gul (Crown)

Mr P Bevan (Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Bevan & Co (Defendant)

File Numbers:

SCC 78 of 2016

SCC 79 of 2016

SCC 80 of 2016

SCC 81 of…

Continue reading R v Celeski

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Celeski [2016] ACTSC 140
Case
[2016] ACTSC 140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Celeski involved the accused, David Celeski, applying for bail in the context of ongoing criminal proceedings. The application was heard in a court with jurisdiction over the matter, where the key issue was whether Celeski's application for bail should be granted, considering his personal circumstances, including his role as a caregiver for a terminally ill family member, his history of drug use, and his efforts towards rehabilitation. The court had to weigh these factors against the need to ensure that Celeski would appear in court as required and the potential risk he posed to the community.

The court considered the various factors presented, including Celeski's responsibility as a caregiver for his terminally ill sister, his history of drug use, and his commitment to rehabilitation through participation in the SMART Recovery program. The court also took into account the impact of Celeski's potential incarceration on his family, particularly his sister. In reaching its decision, the court balanced these considerations with the need to protect the community and ensure that Celeski would not reoffend or fail to appear in court. Ultimately, the court determined that the circumstances warranted the granting of bail, subject to specific conditions designed to mitigate the risk posed by Celeski.

The court granted Celeski bail, subject to several conditions intended to ensure his compliance with the court's requirements and to protect the community. These conditions included providing security for his appearance in court, accepting supervision and monitoring, participating in a drug rehabilitation program, submitting to urinalysis, and reporting to the police on specific days. The court also approved a family member as an acceptable surety for the bail bond. This decision recognised the importance of balancing the accused's personal circumstances with the need for public safety and judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. David Celeski is granted bail subject to the following conditions:

(a) a person gives acceptable security for payment to the Territory of $10,000 if David Celeski fails to appear in court in accordance with his undertaking;

(b) that he accept supervision by the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to urinalysis;

(c) that he accept monitoring by the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS);

(d) that he attend the SMART Recovery program twice a week and consent to the Officer-In-Charge of the program providing to the person supervising him and to CADAS any information reasonably required in relation to attendance and engagement in the program;

(e) that he submit to urinalysis as and when directed;

(f) that he report to the Officer-in-Charge of Queanbeyan Police Station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 8:00am and 8:00pm;

2. That Monica Celeski is a suitable person for the purposes of condition (a) of the bail.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.