R v Michael John Christian

[2009] NSWDC 375

CITATION:	R v Michael John CHRISTIAN [2009] NSWDC 375
JUDGMENT DATE:	19 May 2009
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ
DECISION:	The application for bail is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - bail application - found guilty by jury of break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company - s 9D Bail Act 1978 - repeat offender for the purposes of s9D(4) Bail Act 1978 - exceptional circumstances Family Court proceedings?
LEGISLATION CITED:	Bail Act, 1978 s 9D, s 32
PARTIES:	Regina Michael John Christian
FILE NUMBER(S):	2007/15837
COUNSEL:	Ms H Roberts Mr Hancock
SOLICITORS:	NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT)

JUDGMENT

1. Michael John Christian has been found guilty by a jury of a charge of break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company. That carries a maximum of twenty years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of five years. I have convicted him of that offence.

2. Mr Hancock, who appears for him, has applied for an adjournment in order to prepare his client’s case for sentence, including a presentence report. I propose to grant that adjournment.

3. He also applies for bail for his client in the meantime. My attention has been drawn to s 9D of the Bail Act 1978, which provides that I am not to grant bail to a person in respect of a serious personal violence offence if the person is a repeat offender, unless I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify the grant of bail.

4. The crime of which Mr Christian was convicted is a serious personal violence offence as defined in s 9D(4).

5. Exhibit SA is his criminal record. That discloses that on 5 September 2003 Mr Christian was convicted of armed robbery. For that he served a prison sentence. I am satisfied that that previous conviction is a conviction for a serious personal violence offence and therefore Mr Christian is a repeat offender.

6. Hence instead of the detailed criteria contained in s 32 of the Bail Act I am to focus on the question of whether I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify the grant of bail.

7. It is clear that the Parliament in enacting this provision has in mind that persons who commit serious personal violence offences, if they have already a record for such behaviour, ought not to be at large within the community. One can understand Parliament taking that view.

8. The only exceptional circumstance which Mr Hancock puts forward is that there are proceedings in the Family Court on 3 and 4 June next concerning one of Mr Christian’s daughters. I can understand his desire to be present at those proceedings but in my opinion they do not amount to exceptional circumstances which would justify a grant of bail. Him not being able to attend those proceedings is an unfortunate consequence of his conviction of this serious crime and I do not, as I say, regard his need to attend as amounting to exceptional circumstances.

9. Accordingly, the application for bail is refused.

**********