R v Smith
[2018] ACTSC 211
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Smith |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 211 |
Hearing Date: | 2 May 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 2 May 2018 |
Before: | Burns ACJ |
Decision: | See [12] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – charge of culpable driving causing death – consideration of likelihood of person appearing in court – history of failing to appear - care in custody – Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 22 |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 22 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Angela Lea Smith (Accused) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr D Perkins (Accused) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Accused) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 74 of 2018; SCC 75 of 2018; SCC 76 of 2018 |
BURNS J
I have before me an application for bail by Angela Lea Smith, who I will refer to as the applicant. She is currently charged with a number of offences, the most serious of which is a charge of culpable driving causing death. She has, as I understand it, been in custody since 25 January 2018.
Her application is supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant on 27 April 2018. Annexed to that affidavit are a number of documents, but for present purposes I will refer immediately to the letter by Maree Frey, which is annexed in support of the application, and in particular in support of the applicant's character. I say at the outset that I give no weight to the contents of that letter.
A police Statement of Facts is annexed to the affidavit of the applicant. Based upon the contents of that Statement of Facts, and the concession that was made by the applicant in evidence before the Court today, it appears to me that there is a strong case with respect to the charge of culpable driving against her.
The opposition to bail is really based upon the likelihood of the applicant failing to appear. As I understand it, it is not disputed that the criteria which I must apply in determining whether to grant bail, are those which are found in s 22 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT). Section 22(1)(a) of that Act, provides that I am obliged to consider in such an application the likelihood of the person appearing in court in relation to the offence.
There is no dispute that the applicant has a history of failing to appear before courts. In addition to which, I note that it is conceded that she has previously provided false names to police in order to try to avoid apprehension by police.
It is also relevant to observe that with respect to the present charge there is evidence that she ran from the scene of the accident. The only possible explanation for that conduct on her part was that she was wanting to avoid the attention of police who would inevitably attend such a collision. No different explanation was put forward by the applicant.
The applicant has a longstanding drug and alcohol addiction. There is evidence before me that the applicant has not used any illicit substances since being remanded in custody, and to a certain extent that is supported by a random urinalysis undertaken with respect to the applicant.
But I do note, however, that the proposals which have been put forward for treatment are entirely inadequate. There has been no assessment, apparently, of her treatment needs by an appropriate professional, and no evidence relating to that has been put before me.
It appears to me unlikely that the period of three months in custody would be adequate in order to ensure that the applicant did not return to drug use if she was simply released into the community, as appears to be the current suggestion. In those circumstances there would be a real risk that she would return to the use of illicit substances, and based upon her history fail to appear with respect to these matters.
I note that her previous failures to appear were with respect to relatively minor matters where she was not facing anything like the sentence that is available with respect to the charge of culpable driving. As such in my opinion there is an unacceptable likelihood of the applicant failing to appear if she is granted bail.
In addition to which I should note that whilst she relied upon injuries that she sustained in the accident, and her need for treatment as a ground for the granting of bail, the evidence before me is that she has been treated in custody. She has been subjected to assessments by relevant professionals and provided with treatment. There is simply no evidence before me that the care that is being provided to her in custody is inappropriate or inadequate for her needs.
For these reasons I decline to grant bail.
| I certify that the preceding twelve [12] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Chief Justice Burns. Associate: Date: 14 August 2018 |
0
0
0