R v Farrell - [2015] NSWSC 1082

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Farrell [2015] NSWSC 1082
Hearing dates: 15 and 16 July 2015
Date of orders: 16 July 2015
Decision date: 16 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Detention application granted. Bail revoked.

Catchwords: BAIL – detention application – show cause requirement – risk of reoffending – where respondent charged with large number of sexual offences – where guilty pleas indicated in respect of many charges – relevance of plea to show cause requirement – where no evidence of any treatment or counselling being sought to avoid repetition of admitted conduct
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 8, 16A, 17, 18, 20A, 32, 50
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 166
Cases Cited: R v M [2015] NSWSC 158
R v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
Joseph John Farrell (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
H -Baker (Applicant)
LC Hutchinson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales(Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/204729

Judgment – Ex Tempore

HER HONOUR: John Joseph Farrell stands charged with a large number of sexual offences alleged to have been committed both in the period leading up to and following his ordainment as a Catholic priest. A large number of the charges were brought in 2012 and 2013. A further series of charges were brought more recently in June 2015. Mr Farrell has been on bail throughout the period of his facing the criminal justice system and has, so far as the available information reveals, demonstrated both a willingness and a capacity to comply with relatively onerous bail conditions over a lengthy period.
Following his most recent grant of bail on 30 June 2015, the prosecutor foreshadowed (and shortly afterwards brought) a detention application. This judgment determines that application.
It is not necessary to summarise in detail the material before the Court relating to the charges against the respondent. The material falls broadly into three categories. First, in respect of some of the charges laid in 2012 and 2013, the respondent has indicated pleas of guilty. Some 43 charges to which the respondent proposes to plead guilty have been committed for sentence to the District Court with a further 11 being transferred to that Court pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). In that context, it should be acknowledged that more than 50 charges have been withdrawn relating to the same series. The facts in relation to the matters to be dealt with for sentence in the District Court are set out in an agreed statement of facts.
The Crown appearing on the detention application was unable to confirm whether the respondent has yet been arraigned on indictment in the District Court and adhered to his pleas but there is nothing before me to suggest that he will not do so if he has not done so already.
The second category of charges is…

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 Farrell

Details

AGLC: Decision Restricted [2015] NSWSC 1082
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1082
Decision Date: 16 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Farrell, the respondent was charged with multiple serious sexual offences and had indicated guilty pleas in respect of many of these charges. The applicant sought bail and the respondent opposed the application on the basis that the applicant posed a significant risk of reoffending. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue was whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient cause to justify the grant of bail, particularly in light of the seriousness of the charges and the absence of any evidence that the applicant had sought treatment or counselling to prevent reoffending.

The Supreme Court of Queensland considered the show cause requirement in bail applications, which necessitates that the applicant demonstrate why they should be granted bail. In this case, the court noted that the applicant's guilty pleas did not automatically absolve the need to demonstrate a sufficient cause. The court also considered the risk of reoffending, emphasising that the nature and number of charges, coupled with the lack of evidence of any steps taken to prevent reoffending, strongly indicated that the applicant posed a significant risk. The court held that, given the nature of the charges and the absence of any evidence of treatment or counselling, the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient cause to justify the grant of bail.

The court ultimately concluded that the applicant had not met the threshold for bail, taking into account the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending. The court also noted that the applicant's failure to seek any treatment or counselling to avoid repeating the admitted conduct was a critical factor in their decision. The application for bail was therefore refused.

Orders