R v Maguire (No. 2) - [2022] NSWDC 88

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Maguire (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 88
Hearing dates: 24 February 2022
Date of orders: 24 February 2022
Decision date: 24 February 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) The Crown’s application for detention is granted
(2) Bail is revoked and the offender shall go into custody forthwith

Catchwords:
CRIME — Bail — Detention application
CRIME — Bail — Show cause

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013
Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW v Campbell [2015] NSWCCA 173
DPP of New South Wales v Zaiter [2016] NSWCCA 247
Moukhallaletti v DPP NSW [2016] NSWCCA 314
R v Farrell [2015] NSWSC 1082
Simpson v R [2021] NSWCCA 264
Zoneff v R [2000] HCA 28

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Raymond John Maguire (Offender)
Representation:
Rosheehan O’Meagher (Crown Prosecutor)
Michal Mantaj (Solicitor Advocate for the Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Conditsis Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/00080289 & 2018/00264850
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order of the names of the complainants and of any information which may enable their identities to be ascertained

REVISED JudgEment on the CROWN APPLICATION FOR DETENTION

Introduction

Raymond John Maguire was found guilty after a trial of some significant length, concluding on February 18, 2022, when I delivered judgement and found him guilty of 15 counts.

The Offences

The first count is an offence of producing child pornography pursuant to s 91H(2) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for ten years.
Count 2 is a charge of engaging upon a conduct that exposed a child under the age of 14 years to indecent material with the intention of making it easier to procure the child for unlawful sexual activity, contrary to s 66EB(3) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 12 years with a standard non-parole period of five years.
Count 3 is a charge of having sexual intercourse with a child above the age of ten and below the age of 14 years when under authority, contrary to s 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years.
Count 4 is an offence of having sexual intercourse with a child above the age of ten years and under the age of 14 years under authority, contrary to the same provision, exposing the offender to the same maximum penalty.
Count 5 is another charge of having sexual intercourse with a child above the age of ten, under the age of 14 years when under authority, contrary to the same provision, exposing the same maximum penalty.
Count 6 is an offence of inciting a child under the age of 16 years to commit an act of indecency when the child was under the authority of the offender, contrary to s 61A(1) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that is imprisonment for five years.
Count 7 is a charge of inciting a child under the age of 16 years…

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 Maguire (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Maguire (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 88
Case: [2022] NSWDC 88
Decision Date: 24 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Maguire (No. 2) involved the appellant, who was already on bail for a previous offence, being charged with a new offence. The Crown sought to have the appellant detained on the grounds that the new offence constituted a serious indictable offence and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant would not appear in court if released on bail. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Crown had made out a case for the appellant to be detained, and whether the appellant's bail should be revoked. The court had to consider the nature of the new offence, the appellant's history of failing to appear in court, and whether the appellant posed a risk to the community if released on bail. The court also had to consider whether the appellant had a real prospect of being acquitted of the new offence.

The court found that the Crown had established a case for the appellant to be detained. The new offence was serious and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant would not appear in court if released on bail. The appellant had a history of failing to appear in court and was considered a risk to the community if released on bail. The court also found that the appellant did not have a real prospect of being acquitted of the new offence. The court revoked the appellant's bail and ordered that the appellant be detained forthwith.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Crown’s application for detention is granted

(2) Bail is revoked and the offender shall go into custody forthwith

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Maguire (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 88
Hearing dates:	24 February 2022
Date of orders:	24 February 2022
Decision date:	24 February 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) The Crown’s application for detention is granted (2) Bail is revoked and the offender shall go into custody forthwith
Catchwords:	CRIME — Bail — Detention application CRIME — Bail — Show cause
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 2013 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions NSW v Campbell [2015] NSWCCA 173 DPP of New South Wales v Zaiter [2016] NSWCCA 247 Moukhallaletti v DPP NSW [2016] NSWCCA 314 R v Farrell [2015] NSWSC 1082 Simpson v R [2021] NSWCCA 264 Zoneff v R [2000] HCA 28
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Raymond John Maguire (Offender)
Representation:	Rosheehan O’Meagher (Crown Prosecutor) Michal Mantaj (Solicitor Advocate for the Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Conditsis Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2018/00080289 & 2018/00264850
Publication restriction:	Statutory non-publication order of the names of the complainants and of any information which may enable their identities to be ascertained