SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Richard Michael Rubino |
Citation: | [2012] ACTSC 157 |
Hearing Date: | 29 August, 5, 18, 19, 20 September 2012 |
Decision Date: | 20 September 2012 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | Application granted. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – bail – successive applications for bail – Bail Act s 20C – change in circumstances – jurisdiction – fixing of trial date sufficient to grant jurisdiction – effect of delay before trial – lengthy delay inappropriate – delay relevant but not determinative to bail. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – bail – strength of Crown case – entirely circumstantial case – weak Crown case not a justification for granting bail – risk of reoffending – onus of proof – Crown must at least adduce sufficient evidence to raise the risk of re-offending – finding on a risk of re-offending must not be merely speculative. |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 9A, 20C(2), 22, 25(6), 42A, 43A Bail Act 1978 (NSW), s 32 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Pt 4.4 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 18 |
Cases Cited: | Collins v The Queen [2003] ACTCA 17 Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 92 FCR 168 Edwards (1988) 35 A Crim R 465 Eleko v Government of Nigeria [1928] AC 459 Filipetti (1978) 13 A Crim R 335 Gray v Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] VSC 4 Hillier v The Queen (2007) 228 CLR 618 Mercanti v Western Australia [2005] WASCA 254 Musarri v The Queen [2001] WASC 200 Pinkstone (2000) 119 A Crim R 462 Re an Application for Bail by Breen (2009) 172 ACTR 21 Re an Application for Bail by Holmes [2011] ACTSC 187 Re an Application for Bail by Rodriguez [2008] ACTSC 50 Re an Application for Bail by SA [2010] ACTSC 114 R v Kissner (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Hunt CJ, 17 January 1992) R v Rochford; Ex parte Harvey (1967) 15 FLR 140 R v Wakefield (1969) 89 WN (Pt1) (NSW) 325 |
Texts Cited: | Gans, J, Henning, T, Hunter, J, Warner, K, Criminal Process and Human Rights (Federation Press, 2011) |
Parties: | ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Richard Michael Rubino ( Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Mrs S Jowitt, Ms M Jones, Mr J Lipsius ( Crown) Mr K Archer ( Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service (ACT/NSW) Ltd ( Defendant) | |
File Number: | SC 41 of 2012 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(1)Mr Rubino is bailed to take his trial on 9 December 2013 or on any other occasions as directed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, on the following conditions:
(a)a cash surety of $10 000 is to be paid by Ms Anna Rubino, who the Court declares to be an acceptable person for that purpose;
(b)that he reside at [an address provided to the Court];
(c)that he not use a mobile telephone;
(d)that he…
Continue reading R v Rubino
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Rubino [2012] ACTSC 157
- Case
- [2012] ACTSC 157
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the fixing of a trial date constituted a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a grant of bail. Rubino argued that the delay in the trial proceedings constituted a change in circumstances warranting a grant of bail. The Crown argued that the delay was not sufficient to constitute a change in circumstances and that the original reasons for denying bail remained valid.
The Court found that the fixing of a trial date was sufficient to constitute a change in circumstances warranting a grant of bail. The Court found that the delay in the trial proceedings was a relevant factor, but not determinative. The Court considered the delay in the context of the overall circumstances of the case, including the severity of the alleged offence, the risk of flight, and the safety of the community. The Court concluded that the delay was lengthy but not inappropriate, and that the balance of considerations favoured granting bail.
The Court granted the application for bail, with conditions. Rubino was released on bail pending the trial. The Court emphasised the importance of the principle that bail is a fundamental right, subject to certain restrictions and conditions, and that the circumstances of each case must be considered on their merits.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application granted.
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.