R v Maddock

[2014] NSWSC 1973

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Maddock [2014] NSWSC 1973
Hearing dates:	4 June 2014
Date of orders:	04 June 2014
Decision date:	04 June 2014
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Campbell J
Decision:	Conditional bail granted
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - bail
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 2013
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Matthew Maddock (Applicant)
File Number(s):	2014/00076665

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The applicant for bail is charged with a serious armed robbery offence. There are related matters involving the theft of a motor vehicle and attempting to destroy it by fire. That last offence was apparently an attempt to destroy evidence which was found in the vehicle by police officers who intervened in an apparently timely manner.

2. In considering this application and making a decision about bail, I am required by the statute to have regard to the presumption of innocence and the general right of persons in the community to be at liberty. The central question under the new bail legislation is whether I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions.

3. It is well recognised by courts that there is always a risk involved in releasing a person, charged with a serious offence, on bail but in making a decision I am required by the legislation to, consider whether there is an unacceptable risk either that the applicant will fail to appear, or that while at liberty he will commit a serious offence, or while at liberty he may endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community, or that he may interfere with witnesses or evidence.

4. I must say that in a fair way, Mr Curran who appears for the Crown, has identified the risks that the Crown submits are unacceptable as a risk that the applicant will commit a serious offence whilst at liberty on bail. The basis of that argument is that he has a history of drug abuse and that at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, he told police that he had no memory of his movements on the day of the offence because he had been bingeing on methylamphetamine of a very dangerous type.

5. In deciding whether that risk is unacceptable, I am required to take into account only the matters set out in s17(3) of the Bail Act 2013. I will not mention them all but I do accept the argument on behalf of the Crown that so far as the robbery is concerned, which is the most serious of the offences, it is a strong Crown case.

6. A concession of sorts about that was properly made by Ms Rigg. However this young man’s record, and he is only yet 28, does not contain offences of this type and he has no history of any violent offending.

7. He has strong community ties. His mother and other supporters are present in court. He has offers of accommodation with his mother and also other employment with a family friend.

8. He is the father of a young child whom he has not seen much of because he has been in gaol and the mother of the child is prepared, on conditions acceptable to her which are not a matter for me, to allow him contact with the child which, of course, will be to the child’s benefit in the long term.

9. The Crown fairly acknowledged that he has not previously committed a serious offence whilst at conditional liberty. The previous supply prohibited drug offence which was dealt with by way of a bond, there is no issue before me about that matter. Apparently, he complied in all respects with the bond and that is an important consideration.

10. He has been in custody now for ten months and the matter is still in the Local Court with no clear indication of whether the brief might be served; or when a committal might take place and when the matter can be dealt with on indictment in the District Court. That is a very important consideration.

11. There is no doubt, if convicted of this offence, that he will be serving a custodial sentence. However weighing these competing and, perhaps, conflicting factors up, I am of the view that, yes, there may be an unacceptable risk of the commission of other offences and, indeed, perhaps, some risk which may be unacceptable, that he will fail to appear because of the nature of the charges. But considering whether or not conditions can sufficiently mitigate the risk in accordance with s 20, I am not satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions of the type that Ms Rigg has proposed.

12. I think, however, that I should impose a security requirement under s 26 given the seriousness of the charge and its attendant risks for that reason.

13. I find that there is an unacceptable risk that he may fail to appear and that he may commit a serious offence whilst on bail. However, as I have said, I am not satisfied as required by s 20 and, therefore, I am not entitled to refuse bail. My order is that bail is granted with conditions as follows:

FOR BAIL CONDITIONS SEE COURT FILE

**********

Decision last updated: 05 December 2016