R v Dimitri De Angelis

[2012] NSWDC 219

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Dimitri DE ANGELIS [2012] NSWDC 219
Hearing dates:	28 November 2012
Decision date:	28 November 2012
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Bail granted.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - bail - after conviction - relevant considerations.
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1978, s 8(2)(a)(iii), s 32
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Dimitri De Angelis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: M O'Brien (Crown) S Sivaloganathan (Offender)
File Number(s):	DC 2010/70664

Judgment

1. I am going to grant Mr De Angelis bail until next Tuesday 4 December, 2012 at 10am. I grant him bail under the Bail Act 1978. In a moment I will ask you both to consider conditions, and I have in mind reporting conditions and I have in mind twice a day.

1. My reasons are these. Section 8(2)(a)(iii) of the Bail Act means that Mr De Angelis does not enjoy an entitlement to be granted bail which many other people enjoy. That is because he already stands convicted of the offences that I am sentencing him for.

1. Bail is to be considered by reference to section 32 of the Bail Act. In fact section 32(1) of the Bail Act provides, in making a determination as to the grant of bail - which I am doing in this case on Mr Siva's application for his client - that a "court shall take into consideration the following matters (so far as they can be reasonably ascertained), and the following matters only". It therefore seems that I am limited to the factors which section 32 specifies. Those matters are, it seems, very relevant to the question of whether a person should be granted bail.

1. There are four factors cited by the Act. The first is the probability of whether or not the person will appear in court. The second is the interests of the person who has applied for bail. The third is the protection of any victims or alleged victims and the fourth is the protection and welfare of the community. Each broad heading is followed by a number of considerations which are to be taken into account.

1. Mr M. O'Brien of counsel, who is the Crown Prosecutor, opposes bail.

1. So far as the probability of his client appearing, Mr S. Siva points out that there has been, to date, no failure to appear on the current bail. The two passports possessed by his client, his Australian passport and his French passport, have been surrendered. His client has no prior convictions and he has been in Australia since 1991. There are references which I have read in Exhibit 1. Some of those are residents of New South Wales who describe Mr De Angelis as a very complex and fragile individual. He has been living at his current address for some years. Mr O'Brien, on the other hand, under this criterion, points to the fact that, of course, he is entitled to apply for fresh passports if either of them has expired.

1. So far as the needs of Mr Angelis are concerned, that is one of the main factors which I take into account. The experienced forensic psychiatrist, Dr Allnutt, has an appointment to see Mr Angelis at 5pm next Monday. Although he could see him in custody, it would involve a disruption of his practice and other appointments. In addition Mr Siva tells me that Dr Allnutt has seen his client once or twice before and regards his client's case as a very complex one which requires a good deal of consideration.

1. There has been nothing put before me which suggests that the victims of the offences are in particular need of any protection.

1. So far as the welfare of the community is concerned, Mr O'Brien indicated that there were proceedings between Mr Angelis and some neighbours involving apprehended violence orders, but Mr Siva tells me that those proceedings have either been withdrawn or dismissed, and I have no further information. Mr O'Brien has properly just pointed out to me that his instructions - which he has just received - are that Mr Siva's instructions are correct.

1. In addition Mr De Angelis is seeing a treating psychiatrist twice a week, and has been seeing that psychiatrist since late 2010. I have some concern for the protection and welfare of the community, having regard to the seriousness of these offences, and the offender's involvement in sophisticated deceptions and fraud. With that concern in mind I am inclined to impose reporting conditions. But I also take into account that there is no indication that he has committed any offences whilst on bail.

HIS HONOUR: I will make the formal order in a moment. Conditions, as I said? Your client should be in custody Mr Siva, but for the reasons that I have just given I am prepared to extend bail to next Tuesday. But I am going to make it difficult for him because he needs to begin to feel the fact that he is about to go into custody, so I think he needs to report twice a day.

1. I direct that one of the conditions is that he reports twice a day to the Hornsby police station between 12 midnight and 12 midnight each day. So he can go there at 3 o'clock in the morning, or he can go there at 11 o'clock at night, but he has got to go there twice. The exception is on Monday 3 December when he need only report once, because of his appointment with Dr Allnutt on that day. I otherwise confirm the current bail conditions.

1. With the exception to the amendments that I have made to reporting, bail is continued until next Tuesday 4 December 2012 at 10am on the same conditions as presently fixed.

**********

Decision last updated: 30 November 2012