R v Cranston (No 30) - [2023] NSWSC 216

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 30) [2023] NSWSC 216
Hearing dates: 14 March 2023
Date of orders: 14 March 2023
Decision date: 14 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
Orders at [14]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Bail — Detention application post-conviction

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1, Criminal Code
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
DPP v Day [2022] NSWCCA 173
DPP (NSW) v Van Gestel (2022) 405 ALR 371; [2022] NSWCCA 171
Lin v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) [2017] NSWSC 312
Kaya v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] VSC 420
Ngoc Tri Chau v Director of Public Prosecutions (1995) 37 NSWLR 639
[Redacted]

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Crown
Lauren Anne Cranston (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P McGuire SC with J Paingakulam and C Tran (Crown)
TD Anderson SC (Lauren Cranston)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Greg Willis Criminal Defence Lawyer (Lauren Cranston)

File Number(s): 2017/148185
Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.

JUDGMENT

On 13 March 2023, the jury found Lauren Anne Cranston guilty of the following offences:

Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, conspiring with each other, Simon Paul Anquetil, Devyn Michelle Hammond, Joshua Meredith Kitson, Peter Larcombe, Daniel Rostankovski and divers others with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to a third person, namely the Commonwealth.

Contrary to section 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, conspiring with each other, Simon Paul Anquetil, Devyn Michelle Hammond, Joshua Meredith Kitson, Peter Larcombe and divers others to deal with money of a value of $1,000,000 or more believing it to be the proceeds of crime.

Contrary to section 11.5(1) and 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

Immediately after the verdict, the Crown brought an application under s 50(1) of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) to have Ms Cranston detained before her sentencing. Given the late hour, bail was granted (by consent) overnight.

Principles to be applied

Under s 50(1) of the Bail Act, the prosecutor may apply to a court for the refusal or revocation of bail, or for a grant of bail with conditions attached. After hearing the detention application, the court may, under s 50(3), dispense with bail, grant bail (with or without conditions) or refuse bail. If, as in this case, a bail decision has previously been made, the court that hears a detention application may affirm or vary that decision under s 50(4). Under s 75 of the Bail Act, a detention application is to be dealt with as a new hearing, where evidence or information may be given “in addition to, or in substitution for, the evidence…

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 R v Cranston (No 30)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 30) [2023] NSWSC 216
Case: [2023] NSWSC 216
Decision Date: 14 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was R v Cranston (No 30), where the defendant sought to appeal a decision regarding bail post-conviction. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, having been convicted, applied for bail pending the determination of an appeal against the conviction. The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the defendant posed a significant risk to the community if released.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the defendant met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1985. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the defendant demonstrated that they were not likely to reoffend and whether the interests of justice required the defendant to be granted bail. The court also had to evaluate the risk the defendant posed to the community and the potential impact of the defendant’s release on the community and any potential victims.

The court found that the defendant had not met the threshold for being granted bail. The evidence presented indicated that the defendant remained a significant risk to the community. The court held that the interests of justice did not require the defendant to be released on bail. The risk of reoffending and the potential harm to the community if the defendant were released outweighed the considerations in favour of bail. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed.

Orders