R v Peric
[2022] ACTSC 385
•10 February 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Peric |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 385 |
Hearing Date: | 4 February 2023 |
DecisionDate: | 10 February 2022 |
Before: | Refshauge AJ |
Decision: | 1. It be noted that Mitchell John Peric has been assessed as eligible for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment. 2. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment be prepared. 3. The Director-General of the Health Directorate, through Alcohol and Drug Services and Forensic Mental Health, and the Director-General of Justice and Community Safety, through ACT Corrective Services, prepare a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment and submit it to the Court and to members of the Treatment Order Team on or before Thursday 31 March 2022. 4. The Crown be directed to file and serve its Sentencing Tender Bundle on or before Friday 1 April 2022. 5. The accused be directed to file and serve a copy of any documents on which he proposes to rely on or before Monday 4 April 2022. 6. The Crown be directed to file and serve any written submissions on sentence on or before Tuesday 5 April 2022. 7. The accused be directed to file and serve any written submissions on sentence on or before Wednesday 6 April 2022. 8. The proceedings be adjourned Friday 8 April 2022 at 2:30 pm for sentence. 9. Mitchell John Peric be granted bail to appear on Friday 8 April 2022 at 2:30 pm on the conditions that: a. He reside at [redacted for legal reasons]; b. Except in a case of emergency, he remain at his place of residence between the hours of 8:30 pm each day and 7:00 am the next day and that he present himself to the front door of the residence on request by an officer of ACT Policing during those hours; c. He report to the Officer-in-Charge of Belconnen Police Station each Tuesday and Friday between the hours of 10:00 am and 4:00 pm; d. He not consume alcohol, cannabis or any illicit drugs; e. He submit to supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including attendance at assessment, treatment or counselling for mental health or drug or alcohol dependency; f. He submit to breath analysis or urinalysis if requested by any member of ACT Policing or by the person supervising him; g. He not be within the suburb of Conder or, unless in connection with his employment, the suburbs of Calwell, Theodore, Gordon or Banks; h. He not harass, intimidate or assault [redacted for legal reasons]; i. He not be within 50 metres of [redacted for legal reasons]; j. He not contact [redacted for legal reasons] directly or indirectly, except by telephone, SMS text or a messaging application, and with the prior written consent of [redacted for legal reasons]; and k. On request by any member of ACT Policing or the person supervising him, he provide access to such any prior written consent referred to in condition j and any written contact with her as permitted by that condition and provide to or permit any such person to take a copy of the consent and written contact. 10. Mitchell John Peric attend at ACT Corrective Services, London Circuit, Canberra City by 4:00 pm today, 10 February 2022, to arrange for supervision. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail application – Family violence offences – Risk of further offending – Risk able to be managed – Possibility of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – Bail granted |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 9A, 19, 22 Bail Amendment Act 2011 (ACT), s 5 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) ss 18, 30 |
Cases Cited: | Beniamini v Stormon [2014] ACTSC 2 Burton v R (1974) 3 ACTR 77 Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 |
Texts Cited: | West Australian Government, Perpetrator characteristics (Fact Sheet 3, 2013) |
Parties: | The Queen ( Crown) Mitchell John Peric ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel C Muthurajah ( Crown) P Edmonds ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Canberra Criminal Lawyers ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 279 of 2021 SCC 280 of 2021 |
REFSHAUGE AJ:
Introduction
Mitchell John Peric has pleaded guilty to three offences of personal violence against his partner, one committed in April and two in August 2021 respectively. They are, therefore, offences of family violence. Such offences are considered seriously by the courts, though this was not always so. In the last few years, greater emphasis has been publicly placed on addressing this important problem, which is damaging to the community and creates significant problems for the victim, quite over and above the physical consequences of the violence. Thus, as Johnson J, with whom Hunt AsJ and Latham J agreed, said in R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; 164 A Crim R 179 at 193; [77]:
An adequate account of domestic violence should recognise that it typically involves the exercise of power and control over the victim, is commonly recurrent, may escalate over time, may affect a number of people beyond the primary target (including children, other family members and supporters of the victim) and that it contributes to the subordination of women; domestic violence typically involves the violation of trust by someone with whom the victim shares, or has shared, an intimate relationship; the offender may no longer need to resort to violence in order to instil fear and control
These comments have been adopted in this Territory: see Ross v Mothersole [2010] ACTSC 125 at [43]. Similar comments have been made as well: R v Bell [2005] ACTSC 123, where, at [30], domestic violence was described as “a pernicious and evil phenomenon”. See also Goundar v Goddard [2010] ACTSC 56; 240 FLR 176 at 182; [34]–[35] and Roberts v Smorhun [2013] ACTSC 218 at [120]–[127], [133]–[135].
In this Territory, for over 25 years, special emphasis has been given in the criminal justice system to such offending by all the relevant agencies, from the police to Corrective Services, in cooperation with a number of non‑government organisations.
Mr Peric was arrested on 9 August 2021 and has been in custody since then. He sought that a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made in respect of him. He has been found eligible to proceed for assessment to suitability for such an Order. He has sought bail in the meantime.
The application
Mr Peric’s bail application was, as required, made by Application in Proceeding dated 1 February 2022 and supported by an affidavit filed by his solicitor, both read by the Court. There were no objections to the admissibility of any of the contents of the affidavit.
Apart from some personal details on the proposed bail conditions, the evidence it adduced in the affidavit was by the annexures, which were the Police Statement of Facts, which both counsel stated were agreed, Mr Peric’s criminal record and a letter from Mr Peric’s previous employer. That material has also been read by the Court.
Mr P Edmonds, counsel for Mr Peric, also tendered, without objection, a medical report concerning the victim relating to some symptoms she had suffered from the first of the assaults.
The Crown, represented by Ms C Muthurajah of counsel, opposed the application for bail. Evidence she tendered consisted of a Police Bail Consideration Form and two statutory declarations, one made by Mr Peric’s mother and the other by his sister. Objection was taken to their admissibility.
The Bail Consideration Forms set out the basis on which the Crown opposed the application, although there were several other grounds for Mr Edmonds’ objection. The primary ground was that there was a speculative assertion about Mr Peric’s mental state. It appeared to be unattributed hearsay without any particular foundation asserted for it.
The second ground was that the form included a summary of the facts, which was otiose in that there was an Agreed Statement of Facts. Further, there were statements that were inconsistent, such as that Mr Peric did not have a place to reside except at the house where the victim resided, which precondition was unavailable. The form was, it was pointed out, six months old, having been prepared at the time of Mr Peric’s arrest.
As to the Statutory Declarations, Mr Edmonds submitted that it was clear that the declarations were extremely prejudicial against Mr Peric. Mr Edmonds described the relationship with his mother as “poisonous”. He further submitted that much of the material, especially relating to the incident, were “second-hand hearsay”. The Court read the material and rejected some portions of the Bail Consideration Form and the statutory declaration of Mr Peric’s mother, but admitted the balance.
It was explained in In the matter of an application for bail by Breen [2009] ACTSC 172; 172 ACTR 21 at 29; [75]–[77], to which attention was drawn by Mr Edmonds, that evidence admissible on a bail application was not subject to the rules of evidence set out in the Evidence Act1995 (Cth), but was subject to an obligation in s 19(2) of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) to be relevant and reliable. The Evidence Act, however, has been replaced in this Territory by the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), though, as part of the national scheme, its terms very largely mirror those of the Commonwealth Act.
Nevertheless, there are some differences. In particular, the limitation on the operation of the Commonwealth Act on bail applications in the ACT by virtue of s 8 of the Commonwealth Act together with s 19(6) of the Bail Act. That subsection has now been repealed in 2011 (see s 5 of the Bail Amendment Act 2011 (ACT)) and s 4 of the Evidence Act now fully applies the full rules of evidence to bail applications.
Accordingly, the discussion in Breen is no longer applicable. Full argument on this issue has not been heard and the Court does not propose to lay down any guidelines or directions on it. With the exception of the excluded portions referred to above, the rest of the Crown’s material was admitted.
While, for example, some of the material in the Statutory Declarations and Bail Consideration Forms were hearsay, they were consistent with and added little to the Agreed Statement of Facts. The material appeared to be admissible, but the weight was an entirely different matter.
In relation to the Bail Consideration Form, the Court is very conscious of what Penfold J said in R v Chatfield (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 397 at [25], namely:
A Bail Consideration Form provides police advice about issues relevant to the granting of bail. In this case at least, it was clear that much of the information was not backed up by sworn witness statements or any equivalent evidence, but reflected mainly “information reports” (being reports to police made by people who may not be willing to make, or at least have not made, sworn statements), as well as statements of police suspicions. To that extent, one must be careful about relying on such material as a ground for refusing bail, and counsel for Mr Chatfield attempted to discredit much of the material in the form by pointing out the absence of supporting evidence, and that one part of the form seemed to involve a police misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the incident concerned.
It does not appear that, at the hearing of this case, any issue of whether any material was inadmissible as hearsay was raised and that issue was not considered. That was, apart from the objections raised above, not the subject of submissions here. Further consideration will have to await another day. It is, however, an important issue, for if the strict rules of evidence are to be applied to bail applications, and in particular to the Police Bail Consideration Form, it may be inadmissible and it may involve such applications being much longer and quite formalised. It is merely observed that an objection that evidence is said to be false or biased is not an objection to its admissibility, but a very significant one to its credibility or weight.
The evidence
Sometime between 5 and 24 April 2021, Mr Peric was being driven by the victim either to or from his place of work in Fyshwick, ACT. Mr Peric was apparently unhappy about something and used a lit cigarette to strike the victim in the side of her head. He then punched her to her right eye causing injuries, which she later photographed. She also arranged to have a computerised tomography (CT) scan of her face. These are the facts that led to the first charge of assault.
Mr Edmonds submitted that the contact between the cigarette and the victim’s head was accidental, in the sense that Mr Peric admits hitting her, but with the hand that held the cigarette which then happened to make contact, rather than intentionally doing so. That is somewhat problematic because of the apparent agreement to the Statement of Facts. It is not necessary to resolve this issue on the application, but the dispute is noted. Under either scenario, the hitting of a person in the head and eye while driving makes the assault more serious.
On 4 August 2021, Mr Peric argued with his partner of 15 years, in the course of which he pushed her to the ground, straddled her whilst she was face down and used both his hands to put pressure on her neck, causing her extreme pain and fear.
The partner felt her eyes roll to the back of her head and could not breathe. She thought that she was going to die. The victim’s children were present at this time. They were aged between six years and 14 years old. She then attended The Canberra Hospital later that evening and was treated for pain. She was interviewed by police, but declined to provide a statement to them as she was frightened and fearful of repercussions from Mr Peric.
As a result, Mr Peric was arrested and charged with an offence of common assault and an offence of choking the victim. He was refused bail and remanded in custody, where he has remained since then. He made full admissions to the offences to the police and has pleaded guilty, a precondition of eligibility for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
Mr Peric has been involved with the criminal justice system since 2001. He has been dealt with by the courts in New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, as well as in this Territory. All but four of the 16 offences relate to traffic offences, the majority of which, namely six, were for driving while affected by alcohol and, in addition, one of drug driving. The other three offences were violence offences, two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and one common assault. One of the assaults occasioning actual bodily harm was committed on the current victim in 2012.
An officer of an air conditioning firm wrote that Mr Peric had been employed by the firm until 17 September 2021, though he appears to have been in custody at that date. She described him as “very reliable, hard working, always on time, great communication skills with customers, always completed jobs with high quality work, great working with a team and would always leave jobs tidy and clean.” It was said that, when released, he would be re-employed “when a position becomes available”, as the business is going through a quiet period presently.
Mr Peric has also completed six programs in custody, certificates of completion of which were in evidence. Importantly, one related to conflict resolution.
The picture given of Mr Peric by his mother and sister showed a significantly different person, a chameleon-like situation that is not at all unusual in family violence matters. See, for example, the West Australian Government, Perpetrator characteristics (Fact Sheet 3, 2013), prepared in conjunction with its Family and Domestic Violence Common Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework.
His mother described him as “extremely manipulative”, again, not unusual for such offenders. Mr Peric and the victim “got together” when she was 16 years old and he was 21 years old and is his first and only relationship. The age difference at that stage is not insignificant and may suggest a power imbalance. That, again, is not uncommon, as noted in R v Hamid, quoted above (at [1]), though the Court cannot make a finding of this without further evidence. They have three children together.
Mr Peric’s mother said that she has, over the years, seen him be violent to the victim, which is consistent with his criminal record. He does, she says, also demean the victim. She says that it has been the victim’s love for the children that keeps her “afloat”, but the children witnessing his behaviour towards the victim are also affected by that, again a common characteristic of family violence. This leads to the possibility of psychological damage and risks creating offenders out of those children who witness such violence: Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 at [32].
She went on to describe the interaction she had with the victim following the offences. Suffice to say, that this made clear the effect of the offences on the victim, which was both physical and emotional, consistent with that set out on the Statement of Facts. She attached photographs of the facial injuries suffered by the victim to her right eye from the April assaults.
She also stated that Mr Peric was a heavy drinker, which confirms the issue of Mr Peric’s dependence and likely misuse of alcohol. She suggested that he used drugs from time to time.
The alcohol use, she suggests, is the only time he “will […] make communication”. When he is sober, she suggests “he is quite antisocial”.
It is clear that she has a hugely problematic relationship with her son and a very negative vision of him. It was described by Mr Edmonds as “venomous”. It is clear she is estranged from him.
Mr Peric’s mother lives in Darwin, so her contact with him would inevitably be somewhat limited. Nevertheless, it is difficult not to feel that her evidence is likely to be affected by her particularly negative view of him. That does not, however, mean that the Court should discount it entirely, and it will not do so.
Mr Peric’s sister, in her Statutory Declaration, recounted her interaction with her mother who told her of the August incident. Not much was new evidence, but it was a recounting of what she heard. She did ring her niece, one of the children of Mr Peric and the victim, who was closely affected by the incident. She also said that she was told a friend of her niece was also present at the time, showing at least that the presence of a person not a member of the family has not inhibited Mr Peric from being violent against the victim.
Mr Peric’s sister also lives in Darwin. She makes no negative comment about Mr Peric directly, but it is of limited weight because much of it is simply a recounting merely of what she had been told or is evidence contained elsewhere.
Mr Peric was committed for sentence to this Court on the basis that he would be seeking a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The Court had also received Eligibility Assessments for Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessments. They reported that Mr Peric has a diagnosis of complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder while in custody and a history of alcohol and cannabis use, which was described as “longstanding” and “problematic use from age 15”. It also reported, presumably from self-report, that he had been drinking at the time of the offence.
This confirmed some of the history given in the Police Statement of Facts.
The Police Bail Consideration Form noted that Mr Peric had no history of failing to attend Court. Police, however, expressed a concern about him endangering the safety and welfare of the victim. The explanation was really a summary of the facts and the statement the victim had told her sister-in-law that she was scared of Mr Peric, together with the statement said to have been made by Mr Peric, as told by his mother and included in her Statutory Declaration that “he would take the victim and their children out bush where no one would be able to find them”. It also stated that Mr Peric has no friends or family in the Territory and nowhere to stay in the Territory, except with the victim.
Police also stated that it was believed that he was likely to commit further offences while on bail. The explanation was that he had nowhere to live, except with the victim and that the “callousness of the […] offending […] and the severity of his actions, (namely choking the victim until her eyes rolled to the back of her head)” led police to believe that bail conditions would be insufficient to stop him from reoffending.
The victim, it was further said, had engaged with the Domestic Violence Crisis Service prior to this incident and was seeking emergency accommodation, but Mr Peric was to be told to leave the home. The victim also told police that he had threatened to kill her a number of times in the past.
A further concern was in relation to obtaining witness statements, with which process they believed Mr Peric might interfere. Now that the Statutory Declarations have been produced, this is no longer relevant.
As pointed out by Mr Edmonds, the Bail Consideration Form is six months old, being dated when Mr Peric was arrested, 9 August 2021. Some matters have changed since then. Mr Peric now has a place to reside while on bail. The occupant is a retiree who has consented to Mr Peric residing there. He is aware that there may be checks on Mr Peric and his whereabouts. He is also aware of the problem with Mr Peric’s alcohol consumption.
It is noted, here, that Mr Edmonds submitted that Mr Peric had not consumed alcohol while in custody, now about six months of “drying out” and sobriety. There is no independent evidence of this given that it cannot be guaranteed that alcoholic drinks are not available in custody, but the submission was not challenged, and will be relied on.
Both counsel confirmed that the victim now does not seek that Mr Peric be remanded in custody and is supportive of Mr Peric being granted bail, though she still wishes to be safe.
Finally, the results of the CT scan of the victim’s facial bones shows no fractures. It shows some damage and recommends referral to an Ear, Nose and Throat Specialist.
The application
Mr Peric has pleaded guilty to serious offences, made more serious by the fact that they are family violence offences; two in the presence of children and one while the victim was driving a car. Nevertheless, bail is not a punishment for offences, even where the applicant has admitted to committing the offences. That remains clearly so, even though pre-sentence custody is taken into account in sentence: s 63 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
Further, as has been clearly explained by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] FCA 921; 92 FCR 168 at 174; [21], bail is not for the purpose of preventative detention.
Nevertheless, s 22 of the Bail Act1992 (ACT) does require the Court considering a grant of bail to consider various matters, not primarily, as was the common law, the likelihood of the applicant appearing to take his or her trial: Re an application for bail by Merritt (No 2) [2010] ACTSC 7 at [30]. The likelihood of committing further offences was, however, even under the common law, a relevant consideration.
As explained in Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions at [56], this requires a careful consideration of the issue and real evidence, not merely speculation. Of course, this can be difficult because of the very nature of the risk of future action.
The starting point for the consideration of the application is s 9A of the Bail Act, which provides that a person charged with offences, including those that Mr Peric is facing, is entitled to bail unless the Court is satisfied that refusal is justified after considering the matters set out in s 22 of that Act, being the criteria for granting bail to adults.
This legislation has, of course, to be read in the light of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), which, in s 18, provides a right to liberty and that persons awaiting trial must not be detained in custody as a general rule, though release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial.
Under s 30 of that Act, legislation of the Territory must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights, including those set out in s 18. See, for example, In the matter of an application for bail by Massey (No 2) [2009] ACTSC 70 at [33]–[36] and R v Kristiansen [2008] ACTSC 83 at [20].
In this context, the application will now be considered.
In this case, a principal concern expressed by the Crown was the risk of future offending (s 22(1)(b)(i) of the Bail Act). That is supported by the fact of prior offending and the fact of unreported family violence, which the research shows is a reflection of the views and attitudes of perpetrators which are difficult to address without intense support and treatment.
On the other hand, Mr Peric has remained sober for six months, alcohol being a relevant matter to his offending, and has completed a number of programs in custody. In addition, he has an offer of employment from an employer who considers him a good worker. This is, however, somewhat speculative as it relies on the prospective employer picking up its business after the virus. That does not seem very likely in the next five or six weeks. This is relevant, but not of great weight.
The victim’s attitude is relevant, though research shows that victims can be manipulated both with mixed emotions from the relationship and the power imbalance and, as initially expressed here, fear of the perpetrator and retribution. Hence, for example, her unwillingness to make a statement to police. She, however, no longer fears for her safety if restrictive conditions are imposed to any bail order. The Crown has not submitted any qualification to the victim’s statement to it.
While the situation often requires the Court to protect people who are not necessarily be able to articulate, or sometimes even appreciate their own interests, it is important not to disempower victims of family violence and to ensure that they are able to exercise their own agency.
It is also relevant that, as noted above (at [46]), these are more severe offences because they are family violence offences, which involve cowardly acts and breaches of the trust inevitable in such relationships. It must have been terrifying, especially the choking, to the victim. The offences were also committed in the presence of the children, a further seriously aggravating feature: Beniamini v Stormon [2014] ACTSC 2 at [97].
There are bail conditions that can moderate such a risk, for example, a requirement not to attend at the victim’s house or make physical contact with her. These, if Mr Peric complies with them, will achieve that, but, of course, such conditions are not a physical constraint, such as imposed by being in custody and the level of risk from that is relevant. It is not appropriate merely to revoke bail for breach of such a condition after violence has been perpetrated.
The risk is somewhat heightened by the victim’s history of being unwilling to complain to the authorities about the violence Mr Peric is said to have committed, or her making reports about the breaches of bail conditions, making them harder to monitor.
On the other hand, Mr Peric’s efforts, still limited, but made nevertheless, to address the causes of his offending, moderate the risk.
In addition, supervision, reporting and alcohol and drug testing will further moderate the risk.
Another consideration (s 22(2) of the Bail Act) is the likelihood of a custodial sentence. As the Crown submitted, these were serious offences. The more serious the offences and its sentencing consequences, the less likely it is that a grant of bail is appropriate.
Here, the likelihood of a custodial sentence is high, both from the nature of the offences and the circumstances in which they were committed, which show, as noted above, how serious they are, as well as Mr Peric’s recent history of such offending, which has escalated the seriousness of his offending behaviour on his criminal record over the years.
On the other hand, there are signs that his request for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order is one that has reasonable prospects of being granted, though that is a very provisional assessment without the appropriate drug and alcohol treatment assessments. If so, any custodial sentence must be suspended immediately, a factor again moderating the effect of this factor.
Also mentioned was the likelihood of Mr Peric interfering with the process of police obtaining statements from Mr Peric’s mother and sister. See above (at [41]). This, too, is a relevant matter: s 22(1)(b)(iii) of the Bail Act.
That is a significant consideration. Nevertheless, two matters are relevant here. In the first place, neither of the prospective witnesses were eyewitnesses to the offences, or to admissions made by Mr Peric. Indeed, they were in Darwin at the time. Thus, it is not clear what important or relevant evidence they will give. There may be some possibility of them providing some tendency evidence, but, again, it is not clear that they would be first-hand witnesses of this.
Secondly, the opinion was stated six months ago and prior to Mr Peric’s plea of guilty. Further, the witnesses have already provided Statutory Declarations which appear to provide the relevant evidence that they could give.
Mr Peric has no history of failing to attend Court. No allegations have been brought to the Court’s attention of any breaches he has committed of bail conditions, or of any other Court order in the past.
The sentence will not be imposed for over a month, so proximity of sentence is not a reason to refuse bail: Burton v R (1974) 3 ACTR 77; Cooper v Corvisy [2010] ACTSC 165 at [39].
As explained in Re an application for bail by Merritt (No 2) at [43], the grant of bail is in many ways an exercise in risk management. There is always a risk, though in many cases that is very small. In others, where it is not so small, the exercise becomes one of moderating the risk to an acceptable level. Sometimes the risk remains too high, and bail must be refused.
Not without some hesitation, the Court is prepared to grant Mr Peric’s bail, but on very strict conditions that can be monitored to a degree.
The Court is also satisfied on the basis of the Eligibility Assessment that a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment should be ordered and the matter should be listed for sentence. This will be done.
The Court orders as follows:
1. It be noted that Mitchell John Peric has been assessed as eligible for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment.
2. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment be prepared.
3. The Director-General of the Health Directorate, through Alcohol and Drug Services and Forensic Mental Health, and the Director-General of Justice and Community Safety, through ACT Corrective Services, prepare a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment and submit it to the Court and to members of the Treatment Order Team on or before Thursday 31 March 2022.
4. The Crown be directed to file and serve its Sentencing Tender Bundle on or before Friday 1 April 2022.
5. The accused be directed to file and serve a copy of any documents on which he proposes to rely on or before Monday 4 April 2022.
6. The Crown be directed to file and serve any written submissions on sentence on or before Tuesday 5 April 2022.
7. The accused be directed to file and serve any written submissions on sentence on or before Wednesday 6 April 2022.
8. The proceedings be adjourned Friday 8 April 2022 at 2:30 pm for sentence.
9. Mitchell John Peric be granted bail to appear on Friday 8 April 2022 at 2:30 pm on the conditions that:
a.He reside at [redacted for legal reasons];
b.Except in a case of emergency, he remain at his place of residence between the hours of 8:30 pm each day and 7:00 am the next day and that he present himself to the front door of the residence on request by an officer of ACT Policing during those hours;
c.He report to the Officer-in-Charge of Belconnen Police Station each Tuesday and Friday between the hours of 10:00 am and 4:00 pm;
d.He not consume alcohol, cannabis or any illicit drugs;
e.He submit to supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including attendance at assessment, treatment or counselling for mental health or drug or alcohol dependency;
f.He submit to breath analysis or urinalysis if requested by any member of ACT Policing or by the person supervising him;
g.He not be within the suburb of Conder or, unless in connection with his employment, the suburbs of Calwell, Theodore, Gordon or Banks;
h.He not harass, intimidate or assault [redacted for legal reasons];
i.He not be within 50 metres of [redacted for legal reasons];
j.He not contact [redacted for legal reasons] directly or indirectly, except by telephone, SMS text or a messaging application, and with the prior written consent of [redacted for legal reasons]; and
k.On request by any member of ACT Policing or the person supervising him, he provide access to such any prior written consent referred to in condition j and any written contact with her as permitted by that condition and provide to or permit any such person to take a copy of the consent and written contact.
10. Mitchell John Peric attend at ACT Corrective Services, London Circuit, Canberra City by 4:00 pm today, 10 February 2022, to arrange for supervision.
[His Honour then spoke directly to the offender]
Mr Peric, the offences that you have committed are very serious offences and you have pleaded guilty to them, which is to your credit. There is a long way to go, in that ordinarily people who commit serious offences remain in custody until the end of their sentence, particularly if they are likely to have a custodial sentence.
I am granting you bail in this case in recognition, in part because you do appear to be genuinely attempting to reform and get your life back in order. Let there be no misunderstanding. I am prepared to take the risk because there are conditions.
You must comply with all those conditions. I expect everyone to let us know if something goes wrong. If there are difficulties with the conditions, you can come back to Court, and we can vary those if we need to.
Your drug and alcohol use is longstanding. You cannot change just like that. I am sure when you stand here today, you are committed to doing the right thing. You know that when you are out there, things change. You just take a quick drink and suddenly you are into your 19th drink. So, I am taking a very cautious action. The Crown, quite properly, said “No, the risk is too great”. The risk is great. I think we can moderate it, and so I have given you that opportunity.
Your partner also needs to be sure that you have changed. She obviously has an emotional attachment to you, and you are, after all, the father of her kids. That is all important. You have abused that trust horrendously and she needs to be absolutely certain that you are not going to keep doing that, even though she is emotionally committed, and even though I hope she does not fear that you are going to be taking revenge on her, if she does not stand up and support you when, finally, you are back in the community.
These are all considerations that are very important. At the moment I have given you that opportunity. Show me by 8 April that you can comply with those conditions and that you can get some of those issues under control. It may be that while you are waiting for the job, you might look around for some treatment. DVCS have got programs and so on, and that might help you, and there are others. Anyhow, do not muck it up.
I will see you on 8 April. Hopefully it will all be good, and we will get back to some normalcy, and you can see your kids and your partner then.
| I certify that the preceding eighty-one [81] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Justice Refshauge Associate: Date: 27 March 2023 |
2
14
6