R v Greenup - [2020] NSWSC 1866

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Greenup [2020] NSWSC 1866
Hearing dates: 16 December 2020
Date of orders: 18 December 2020
Decision date: 18 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Bail Refused

Catchwords:
BAIL – Murder – Aboriginal offences – special considerations necessary – applicant not shown cause – unacceptable risk – bail refused.

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 16A, 16B, 17, 18

Cases Cited:
Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCCA 314

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Stacey Kell Greenup (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Edwards (Applicant)
N Angelovski (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ryan & Payten Criminal Law Specialists (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/334174
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Stacey Kelly Greenup applies for bail. She was arrested on 30 June 2020 and charged with murder and bail was refused in the Waverley Local Court on 1 July 2020. As a consequence of the seriousness of the crime with which the applicant is charged, the applicant is required, pursuant to s 16A of the Bail Act2013 (NSW) to show cause as to why her continued detention is not justified. The applicant is 36 years of age.
The circumstances of the offence are said to be that the applicant was the instigator for a violent assault perpetrated on the victim, which assault was physically effected by six other co-offenders, whilst the applicant was nearby. The Crown alleges that the assault was retribution for an alleged sexual assault of the applicant by the victim. Police consider that the allegation of sexual assault is concocted for the purpose of distracting attention from a consensual sexual relationship between the victim and the applicant.
The charge of murder is preferred as a consequence of the application of the principles of joint criminal enterprise. The Crown alleges that the applicant was aware that one of the co-accused was carrying a plank of wood to be used as a weapon in the assault. As a consequence, it was within her contemplation that the assault would occasion grievous bodily harm and, as a consequence of the principles of extended joint criminal enterprise, she is liable for the death of the victim.
As already stated, the offence of murder, being the most serious offence in the criminal calendar, is categorised as a show cause offence, requiring the applicant to show cause as to why her continued detention is unjustified. The Crown alleges bail concerns in relation to flight or non-appearance; the commission of a further serious offence; danger to the community; and interference with witnesses or evidence.
The Crown points out that most of the Crown witnesses are known to the applicant. Further, the applicant’s children are witnesses in the proceedings and are said to be critical to establishing the motive for the offence.
The Crown alleges that its case is a strong one, which relies on various witnesses who heard the applicant explain that she had been sexually…

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 Greenup

Details

AGLC: R v Greenup [2020] NSWSC 1866
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1866
Decision Date: 18 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Greenup, were charged with the murder of a fellow Aboriginal man. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendants sought bail, arguing that they were unlikely to commit an offence if released, given their cultural ties to the community. The court was required to consider whether the defendants posed an unacceptable risk to the community if released on bail.

The court examined the nature of the offence and the potential risk posed by the defendants if released. It noted the serious nature of the offence, being a homicide within the Aboriginal community, and the potential for a breach of bail if released. The court also considered the defendants' ties to the community and their potential to commit further offences. Ultimately, the court found that the defendants had not demonstrated cause for bail and that there was an unacceptable risk of reoffending if released.

The court concluded that the defendants did not meet the criteria for bail. It found that the nature of the offence, combined with the risk of reoffending, meant that the defendants posed a significant risk to the community. The court also noted that the defendants had not provided any compelling reasons for being granted bail. The court therefore refused bail for the defendants.

The court's final orders were that the defendants remain in custody until their trial. The court emphasised the importance of considering the unique cultural and community factors in this case, but ultimately found that these factors did not outweigh the risk of reoffending. The defendants were therefore denied bail.

Orders