R v YA - [2024] NSWSC 1445

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v YA [2024] NSWSC 1445
Hearing dates: 4 November 2024
Date of orders: 4 November 2024
Decision date: 04 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) The detention application is refused.
(2) Bail to continue in its current form.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – bail – detention application – where court satisfied respondent will be sentenced to full-time imprisonment – section 22B Bail Act – “special or exceptional circumstances” – where offender under 18 at the time of the offences – where kept in juvenile detention centre before bail granted – where offender now an adult – where legislation provides no power or discretion in bail court for offender to be detained in detention centre on remand – possible lacuna in legislation – where sentencing court has power to order offender to be detained in juvenile institution upon sentence – threats from other accused – where sentencing proceedings to occur in the next 6 weeks – prosecution of detention application fairly and properly muted – special or exceptional circumstances established – application refused

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 17, 18, 19, 22B
Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 3, 5, 9, 9A, 28A, 28B, 28BA
Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 19
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Van Gestel (2022) 109 NSWLR 136; [2022] NSWCCA 171
El-Hilli and Melville v R [2015] NSWCCA 146
R v Diallo & Ors (No 5) [2024] NSWSC 914
R v Diallo & Ors (No 6) [2024] NSWSC 917

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Applicant)
YA (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
E Balodis (Rex)
P Kondich (YA)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Rex)
King & York Lawyers (YA)

File Number(s): 2022/00052010
Publication restriction: Statutory prohibition on the publication of the names of the juvenile accused and any material that might identify them. See s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

27 October 2023

Before:

Judge Newlinds SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/00039479

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

On Friday last week YA entered pleas of guilty to three offences which he committed, along with four others, on 1 September 2021. The offences were (1) the manslaughter of Oliver Coleman, (2) the wounding of EO with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and (3) the wounding of EC with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
The factual circumstances as well as the background of these offences are quite well-known to me because I presided over a pre-trial hearing and a trial of the other four young offenders, which ended in verdicts on 23 September 2024. In general terms, the offences involved a dispute between two rival – what I will call – “street gangs”, which resulted in an extraordinary incident of violence in the suburban streets of Blacktown on 1 September 2021 with, as can be seen…

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 YA

Details

AGLC: R v YA [2024] NSWSC 1445
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1445
Decision Date: 04 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v YA involved an application by the prosecution for the respondent to be detained in a juvenile detention centre on remand. The respondent had committed offences when under the age of 18 and was initially held in a juvenile detention centre before being granted bail. The respondent is now an adult. The legal issues in the case centred on whether the court could order the respondent to be detained in a juvenile detention centre, given that the relevant legislation did not provide for such detention on remand, and whether the special or exceptional circumstances required by the statute were present to warrant detention. The court had to determine whether the lack of power to detain the respondent in a detention centre on remand created a lacuna in the legislation, and whether threats from other accused persons could be considered special or exceptional circumstances.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Bail Act and concluded that there was no express or implied power for the court to order the respondent to be detained in a juvenile detention centre on remand. However, the court found that the respondent's threats from other accused persons, and the fact that sentencing proceedings were scheduled to occur within the next six weeks, constituted special or exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the statute. The court held that these circumstances warranted the respondent's detention in a detention centre to ensure their safety and the proper administration of justice. The prosecution's arguments against detention were considered and found to be fairly and properly muted.

The court ultimately determined that the special or exceptional circumstances established by the respondent's threats and the pending sentencing proceedings justified the respondent's detention in a detention centre. The application for detention was therefore refused. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case when determining whether detention on remand is warranted, and the potential limitations of the current legislative framework in certain situations.

Orders