R v Po'oi (No 4) - [2022] ACTSC 198

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Po’oi (No 4)
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 198
Hearing Date:	29 July 2022
DecisionDate:	1 August 2022
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Decision:	1. Daniel Ronald Po’oi be granted bail from 3 August 2022 to appear 25 November 2022 on the following conditions: a. That he be released on 3 August 2022 directly into the company of staff from Karralika Therapeutic Programs Inc. and proceed directly to the Karralika Therapeutic Community facility and admit himself into the Nexus and Matrix programs; b. That he undertake the Matrix and Nexus programs until they are completed and that he obey all the directions of the persons in charge of the programs and obey all rules of the facility; c. That if he leaves or is discharged from either program, he present himself to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00pm on the next business day with a view to having his bail reviewed; d. That he not consume alcohol, cannabis or any illicit drugs; e. That he accept supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegates during the period of bail and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to undergo any drug or alcohol testing; f. That he report to Tuggeranong Police Station everyday between 8:00am and 5:00pm for the period of bail and notify the officers there of any change of address; g. That he not contact directly or indirectly, whether in person or via electronic means, Bobbie West and not be within 100 metres of her; h. That he be at his place of residence between the hours of 9:00pm and 7:00am each day. 2. Daniel Ronald Po’oi be remanded in custody until 3 August 2022. 3. The proceedings be adjourned until 25 November 2022 at 2:30pm. 4. Liberty to either party to seek leave to amend the bail if any further information is obtained.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – Application for bail – opportunity for rehabilitation – protection of the community – bail granted
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) pt 4.4, ss 12A, 80ZE, 80ZH
Cases Cited:	Davey (1980) 2 A Crim R 254 Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] FCA 921; 92 FCR 168 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 In the matter of an application for bail by Massey (No 3) [2010] ACTSC 52 In the matter of an application for bail by Rowland [2016] ACTSC 6 R v Blaskovic [1999] FCA 1306 R v Charles (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 366 R v GD [2015] ACTSC 174 R v Hebditch [1999] FCA 1087 R v JM [2014] ACTSC 380 R v Massey (No 4) [2021] ACTSC 211 R v Mathews [2020] ACTSC 364 R v O'Brien [2012] ACTSC 199 R v Po’oi (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 340 R v Po’oi (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 354 R v Po'oi [2021] ACTSC 151 R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362 R v Wilkins [2015]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Po'oi (No 4) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] ACTSC 198
Decision Date: 1 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Po'oi (No 4) involved the application for bail for Daniel Ronald Po'oi, who was in custody and facing criminal charges. The court had to consider whether bail should be granted to Po'oi and, if so, what conditions should be imposed to ensure both the opportunity for rehabilitation and the protection of the community. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue was whether bail should be granted to Po'oi, and if so, what conditions should be imposed. The court considered the seriousness of the alleged offence, Po'oi's criminal history, the risk of reoffending, the need for protection of the community, and the potential for Po'oi to rehabilitate if released on bail. The court also considered the terms of the bail application, including the proposed rehabilitation programs and supervision arrangements.

The court found that bail should be granted to Po'oi, subject to certain conditions. The court was satisfied that the proposed rehabilitation programs offered a real opportunity for Po'oi to rehabilitate and reduce the risk of reoffending. The court also considered the potential impact of releasing Po'oi on bail on the community and was satisfied that the imposed conditions, including supervision and reporting requirements, would provide adequate protection. The court noted that Po'oi had a significant history of drug and alcohol abuse, and that the proposed conditions would provide an opportunity for him to address these issues and reduce the risk of reoffending.

The court ordered that Po'oi be granted bail on the conditions outlined in the orders. These included that Po'oi be released directly into the care of a therapeutic program, that he undertake specific rehabilitation programs, that he abstain from drugs and alcohol, that he accept supervision and report to police, and that he not contact certain individuals or be within a certain distance of them. The court also ordered that Po'oi be remanded in custody until 3 August 2022 and that the proceedings be adjourned until 25 November 2022. The court allowed liberty to either party to seek leave to amend the bail if any further information is obtained.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Daniel Ronald Po’oi be granted bail from 3 August 2022 to appear 25 November 2022 on the following conditions:

a. That he be released on 3 August 2022 directly into the company of staff from Karralika Therapeutic Programs Inc. and proceed directly to the Karralika Therapeutic Community facility and admit himself into the Nexus and Matrix programs;

b. That he undertake the Matrix and Nexus programs until they are completed and that he obey all the directions of the persons in charge of the programs and obey all rules of the facility;

c. That if he leaves or is discharged from either program, he present himself to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00pm on the next business day with a view to having his bail reviewed;

d. That he not consume alcohol, cannabis or any illicit drugs;

e. That he accept supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegates during the period of bail and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to undergo any drug or alcohol testing;

f. That he report to Tuggeranong Police Station everyday between 8:00am and 5:00pm for the period of bail and notify the officers there of any change of address;

g. That he not contact directly or indirectly, whether in person or via electronic means, Bobbie West and not be within 100 metres of her;

h. That he be at his place of residence between the hours of 9:00pm and 7:00am each day.

2. Daniel Ronald Po’oi be remanded in custody until 3 August 2022.

3. The proceedings be adjourned until 25 November 2022 at 2:30pm.

4. Liberty to either party to seek leave to amend the bail if any further information is obtained.

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.