R v MC
[2018] ACTSC 274
•16 June 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v MC |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 274 |
Hearing Date: | 16 June 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 16 June 2018 |
Reasons Date: | 2 October 2018 |
Before: | Loukas-Karlsson J |
Decision: | Bail is revoked bail in accordance with s 19(1)(b) of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT). |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – application for bail to be revoked following guilty verdict at trial – child sexual offences – bail revoked |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT) ss 9B(d), 19(1)(d), 22 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) MC (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S Beaumont (Crown) Ms B Morrisroe (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 134 of 2016; SCC 28 of 2017 |
LOUKAS-KARLSSON J
On 16 June 2018, the offender, who shall be referred to as MC, was convicted of five counts of indecent assault and one count of carnally knowing a girl under 10. These offences, involving three of his nieces, were committed whilst they were children in his care during the 1980s.
Following the return of verdicts by the jury, I invited counsel to make submissions in relation to the issue of the offender’s bail.
The prosecution made an application for the offender’s bail to be revoked.
Counsel for the offender made an application for bail to be continued, on strict conditions.
Counsel for the offender submitted that the offender had an excellent record of compliance with bail conditions, noting that throughout the protracted proceedings, including several listings of the trial, he had never failed to comply with any conditions. Counsel submitted that there would be no reason to suspect that the offender would not attend and that the offender needed to deal with necessary matters in advance of sentencing. Counsel for the offender submitted that the offender would also need to undergo a physical health assessment prior to sentencing.
In the course of this submission, counsel also emphasised that the offender ordinarily resides at Batemans Bay where he attends to caring for his sister who has certain disabilities. Counsel also submitted that another difficulty associated with a revocation of bail would be that the offender had been staying in a hotel in Queanbeyan throughout the trial, and held some belongings at that hotel.
In conclusion, counsel for the offender submitted that the offender had a lawful purpose for needing to be at liberty in order to set his affairs and his sister’s affairs in order prior to any sentence of imprisonment.
The prosecution submitted that contact has been made with the offender’s other sisters to ensure adequate provision was made for assistance to be provided to the offender’s sister with disabilities at Batemans Bay.
The prosecution submitted that the offender was likely to face a term of imprisonment, with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment. The prosecution further submitted that the seriousness of the offences made the revocation of bail an appropriate course. Finally, the prosecution submitted that there had been ample opportunity for the offender to set his affairs in order through the course of the trial.
Additionally, the prosecution also submitted that the offender would be required to undergo a health and mental health assessment upon entry to the Alexander Maconochie Centre, and that a pre-sentence report could be completed whilst the offender was detained prior to sentencing.
As the offender has been convicted of an indictable offence, but not sentenced, in accordance with s 9B(d) of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act), there is no presumption for bail. Having considered the submissions from both parties and the relevant matters under s 22 of the Bail Act, I revoke bail in accordance with s 19(1)(b) of the Bail Act.
| I certify that the preceding eleven [11] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Justice Loukas-Karlsson. Associate: Date: 2 October 2018 |
0
0
1