R v Furlong No. Sccrm-02-122

[2002] SASC 139

R V FURLONG

[2002] SASC 139

Criminal (Ex Tempore)

1. LANDER J.           This is an application by an accused person for review of a decision of a bail authority. The applicant sought bail in the Magistrates Court which was refused. He seeks a review of that decision in this court so that he might be granted bail pending disposal of the matters with which he is charged.

2. The applicant is aged 32 and has been a ward of the state since the age of nine. After he was made a ward he was placed in between 20 and 25 foster homes in different places throughout the State.  He became addicted to heroin at the age of 15, and notwithstanding that addiction, he has qualified as a chef.

3. He wants bail in relation to these offences so that he may obtain assistance to help deal with his drug addiction.

4. The applicant has an appalling record. He has been consistently before the courts since about the age of 13.  That would be consistent with his submission to me that he has been a heroin addict since the age of 15.

5. He has been granted bail on a number of occasions but he has also breached bail agreements on seven previous occasions.

6. In 1995/1996, the applicant was convicted of a number of offences and sentenced to seven years, seven months imprisonment and a non-parole period just short of five years was set. He was released on parole on 8 October 2000 and remains on parole until 29 September 2003.

7. The applicant tells me that when he was released he was no longer using heroin. He remained free of drugs for about a year after his release but in September 2001 he asserts that he was given a drink which was laced with amphetamines. He began using amphetamines in September 2001 and remains a user now. He seeks bail so that he can deal with that addiction.

8. In support of his application, he called Major Smith, a member of the Salvation Army and prison chaplain. Major Smith indicated that there were two programs available to Mr Furlong if he was genuine in his desire to overcome his drug addiction. The first is a bridge program which is only available to persons who are not in prison. The second is a diversion course which is available to those both in and out of prison. Mr Furlong wishes to undergo the bridge program.

9. In further support of his application he has informed me that Corina Curtis is prepared to act as his guarantor. Ms Curtis has no other assets apart from household items.

10. I have already pointed to the applicant’s poor record in relation to previous bail agreements and that he was on parole when he is alleged to have committed these offences. There are other relevant factors to be taken into account.

11. On 8 November 2001 the appellant was charged with stealing a motor vehicle on 9 September 2001 and with several driving offences, which are less relevant, and with the offence of hindering police. The appellant was refused police bail but he was granted bail in the Magistrates Court. When he appeared before that court on 27 November 2001 he was remanded on bail to appear before the court on 20 December 2001. He failed to appear on that occasion and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

12. He tells me that there are medical reasons for his failure to comply with his most recent bail agreement.

13. The offences for which he now seeks bail are alleged to have occurred on 6 January, whilst he was on bail in relation to the information laid on 8 November 2001 and of course whilst he remains on parole. Those offences are serious and include two counts of non-aggravated criminal trespass and two counts of larceny.

14. Since being arrested in relation to those matters he has also been charged on information with two further counts of non-aggravated criminal trespass, two counts of larceny, one of receiving and one of making a false statement, which are alleged to have occurred in September 2001. Those offences are less relevant than the ones for which he now seeks bail because those other offences are alleged to have been committed before he entered into the bail agreement on 27 November 2001.

15. In summary, the appellant, who has breached seven bail agreements, who was on parole, who was granted bail on 27 November, who was in breach of that bail agreement and who was alleged to have committed further offences whilst on bail seeks further bail for the purposes to which I have referred.

16. Ms Richardson who appears for the Crown opposed any further bail agreements. She said that whilst the applicant was deserving of sympathy, it was in the public interest and for the protection of the public that he be refused bail.

17. The applicant is articulate and apparently an intelligent person. He put his submissions sensibly, reasonably and persuasively. I agree with Ms Richardson’s submission that he is deserving of sympathy as indeed anyone who finds themselves using drugs over such a long period of time is. Regrettably, however, I also agree with her further submission that the protection of the public makes this application bound to fail. The applicant is not a good candidate for bail. There is a real risk of his re-offending. It would be inappropriate, having regard to all of the matters to which I have referred, to extend to him any further bail agreements pending the disposal of these matters.

18. The application for bail is refused.