R v GD - [2015] ACTSC 174

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v GD
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 174
Hearing Date(s):	26 June 2015
DecisionDate:	26 June 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. GD be granted bail from Monday 29 June 2015, to be released into the company of an officer of the Director General on the following conditions: a. That GD be under the supervision of the Director General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, especially as to residence and treatment or counselling for drug and alcohol issues, with the expectation that such directions will require participation in the Ted Noffs Foundation PALM Program; b. That GD not consume alcohol or illicit drugs; c. That GD submit to breath analysis and urinalysis when reasonably directed by the person supervising him; d. That GD consent to any person or agency providing him with treatment or counselling or other support providing to the person supervising him any information about his treatment and progress; e. That GD present himself to the person supervising him within 24 hours of him ceasing, without the consent of the person supervising him, to participate in any program in which he has been directed to participate, with a view to him returning to court for the purpose of having his bail reviewed.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Bail – Young person – Applicant seeking rehabilitation – Previous failure to honour bail undertaking
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act1992 (ACT), ss 22, 23 Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT), s 94
Cases Cited:	Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 92 FCR 168 Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Govinden (1999) 106 A Crim R 314 R v Smith [1964] Crim L R 70 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) GD (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Hiscox (Crown) Mr H Jorgensen (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 134 of 2015 SCC 135 of 2015

REFSHAUGE J:

GD has been charged with a number of serious offences, for which he has been committed for trial and sentence to this Court. There are two counts of aggravated burglary, a count of theft, a count of dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent and dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without consent.

The offences are alleged to have been committed between 6 and 14 April 2015. He was arrested on 10 April 2015 and granted bail, but after being again arrested for the offences committed on 9 and 14 April 2014, which it is alleged were committed while he was on bail, was remanded in custody and has remained in custody since then.

A further offence or offences relating to a burglary in Hall are to be preferred against GD. At present, those offences are expected to be laid on 7 September 2015, as that 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 GD

Details

AGLC: R v GD [2015] ACTSC 174
Case: [2015] ACTSC 174
Decision Date: 26 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v GD, the applicant, GD, sought bail from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. GD, a young person, faced criminal charges and was seeking rehabilitation, despite a previous failure to honour bail conditions. The prosecution opposed the application on the basis of GD's history of failing to comply with bail conditions. The court had to determine whether GD was suitable for bail, considering his previous non-compliance, and if so, what conditions should be imposed to ensure his rehabilitation and compliance with the law.

The central legal issue was whether GD, given his history of failing to comply with bail conditions, was still eligible for bail, and if so, under what specific conditions. The court considered the balance between GD's right to liberty and the need to protect the community and ensure his rehabilitation. It had to weigh the seriousness of the charges against GD's expressed intent to participate in a rehabilitation program and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court granted GD bail, acknowledging his previous failure to comply with bail conditions but also noting his expressed commitment to rehabilitation. The court imposed stringent conditions, including supervision by the Director General, participation in a specified rehabilitation program, and strict prohibitions on alcohol and drug use. These conditions were designed to closely monitor GD's compliance and to facilitate his rehabilitation. The court held that GD's previous non-compliance did not necessarily preclude him from being granted bail, provided that robust conditions were imposed to mitigate the risks associated with his release.

The orders included GD being granted bail from 29 June 2015, subject to specific conditions such as supervision by the Director General, participation in the Ted Noffs Foundation PALM Program, and prohibitions on alcohol and drug use. GD was also required to submit to drug and alcohol testing, consent to the sharing of his treatment information with his supervisor, and report to his supervisor if he ceased participation in any program without consent. These conditions aimed to ensure GD's compliance and facilitate his rehabilitation while protecting the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. GD be granted bail from Monday 29 June 2015, to be released into the company of an officer of the Director General on the following conditions:

a. That GD be under the supervision of the Director General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, especially as to residence and treatment or counselling for drug and alcohol issues, with the expectation that such directions will require participation in the Ted Noffs Foundation PALM Program;

b. That GD not consume alcohol or illicit drugs;

c. That GD submit to breath analysis and urinalysis when reasonably directed by the person supervising him;

d. That GD consent to any person or agency providing him with treatment or counselling or other support providing to the person supervising him any information about his treatment and progress;

e. That GD present himself to the person supervising him within 24 hours of him ceasing, without the consent of the person supervising him, to participate in any program in which he has been directed to participate, with a view to him returning to court for the purpose of having his bail reviewed.

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.