R v Monfries (No 4) - [2011] ACTSC 212

R v JUSTIN MONFRIES (No 4)
[2011] ACTSC 212 (14 December 2011)

R v Monfries [2011] ACTSC 203
Burton v The Queen (1974) 3 ACTR 77

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 435 of 2008
No. SCC 201 of 2011

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 14 December 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 435 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          No. SCC 201 of 2011

R

v

JUSTIN MONFRIES

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  14 December 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Mr Monfries be granted bail to appear before the Supreme Court on 21 December 2011 at 9.30 am on the following conditions:

(a) that he reside at 2 Lomman Place, Kambah ACT;

(b) that he not absent himself from that place of residence between 8 pm and 8 am daily and present himself to police during those hours;

(c) that he not use illicit drugs or alcohol; and

(d) that he submit to breath analysis if required by a member of the Australian Federal Police.

On Monday 12 December 2011, I revoked bail that had been granted to Justin Monfries earlier, in respect of a number of charges of dishonesty and breaching his bail undertakings and obligations, because he had admitted to breaching a curfew that was imposed as a condition of that bail, notwithstanding that he had not had his bail revoked despite breaching an associated condition, namely that which required him to present himself to a police officer upon request during the times when he was required under the bail curfew condition to be present in his place of residence.

This matter has a long history and I do need to repeat it. That history is briefly set out in my reasons for granting him bail on Friday 9 December 2011. See R v Monfries [2011] ACTSC 203. Mr Monfries has now been in custody since I revoked bail and an application has now been made to me for bail.

The long history does no credit to the Court and myself, but needs to be brought to a head, and I am able now to deliver judgment in respect of the fitness to plead matter next Wednesday 21 December 2011 at 9.30 am. The question is whether I should grant bail to Mr Monfries between now and then. Ordinarily, on the authority of cases such as Burton v The Queen (1974) 3 ACTR 77, bail for a short period of time is not regularly granted unless there are special circumstances.

In this case, the history of the matter needs to be taken into account. Although, as recounted in my earlier decision, there have been a number of occasions when Mr Monfries has breached his bail, Mr Lalor, who appears for Mr Monfries, rightly points out that given the time involved and the other circumstances which I will mention in a moment, the matter really has become an issue of bail for its own sake rather…

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 Monfries (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Monfries (No 4) [2011] ACTSC 212
Case: [2011] ACTSC 212
Decision Date: December 14, 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Monfries (No 4), the defendant, Mr Monfries, appeared before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case revolved around bail conditions and the defendant's compliance with them. The prosecution contested the defendant's application for bail, arguing that he had not complied with the conditions set by the court. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that he had fulfilled all the conditions, and therefore, his bail should be granted.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant had indeed complied with the bail conditions, and if not, whether this warranted a revocation of his bail. The court also had to consider the principles of bail and the factors relevant to determining whether bail should be granted or revoked. These factors included the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of the defendant appearing in court, and any risk the defendant might pose to the community.

The court found that Mr Monfries had not complied with the bail conditions, as evidenced by several breaches. However, the court also recognised that the defendant had taken steps to rectify these breaches and had demonstrated a willingness to comply with the conditions in the future. The court weighed these factors against the seriousness of the offence and the risk posed by the defendant. Ultimately, the court decided to grant bail to Mr Monfries, subject to specific conditions. These conditions were designed to ensure compliance and mitigate any risk to the community. The defendant was required to appear before the Supreme Court on 21 December 2011 at 9.30 am.

Orders

Orders of the court

Mr Monfries be granted bail to appear before the Supreme Court on 21 December 2011 at 9.30 am on the following conditions:

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.