See v The King

[2023] NSWDC 465

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	See v R [2023] NSWDC 465
Hearing dates:	25-26 July 2023
Date of orders:	26 July 2023
Decision date:	26 July 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See pars [7]-[9].
Catchwords:	CRIME – BAIL – Application for release – Break, enter and steal offences – Grant of bail subject to the grant of Parole by the Parole Board.
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Nil.
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Applicant – Phillip Ryan See Respondent – Crown (NSW)
Representation:	Applicant – Self-represented Respondent – Ms Pearson of the ODPP (NSW)
File Number(s):	2022/00257777
Publication restriction:	Nil.

Judgment

Ex tempore

1. This is an application for bail. The accused was arrested on 30 August 2022 and was refused bail by Magistrate Milledge sitting in the Local Court. He has not made any application for bail until that which I commenced hearing yesterday afternoon.

2. The accused has been charged on an indictment containing two counts. The first count is of a breaking, entering and stealing committed sometime between 9 February 2022 and 16 February 2022 at Lindfield. The second count refers to a breaking, entering and stealing alleged to have been committed sometime between 17th and 21st of February 2022 at Killarney Heights. The accused has pleaded not guilty to those two charges.

3. The matter has been set down for hearing in this Court on 27 November 2023 with an estimate of 7 days. The applicant before me is not legally represented. He has made three applications to Legal Aid but on each occasion, his application has been unsuccessful. Exhibit C on this application is a letter from Legal Aid bearing date 27 April 2022 which refused to grant the applicant bail. It appears that Legal Aid believed that at the time of refusing the applicant’s request for Legal Aid that he had some equity perhaps in bank accounts, the appellant referred to having received an inheritance from a paternal grandparent. It would appear that the applicant has money in a bank account in a sum of just over $15,000.

4. The applicant has a degree in law and a postgraduate diploma in law and worked for a short time as a paralegal but has lost that employment because of his criminal history. Significantly, the appellant has committed a large number of crimes against property, mainly breaking, entering and stealing. Indeed, on 3 June 2016, he was sentenced by Arnott DCJ for 13 offences. His Honour imposed a sentence of twelve and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven and a half years commencing on 18 January 2013 and expiring on 17 July 2020.

5. Custodial records tell me that he was in fact granted parole by the parole board on 17 July 2022. When the offender is alleged to have committed the two matters contained on the present indictment, he was still on the parole pursuant to the sentence imposed by Arnott DCJ, Hence the need for the applicant to show cause because the alleged offences involve s 16B(1)(h)(ii) of the Bail Act2013. However, the appellant has put forward sufficient grounds to establish to my satisfaction that he needs to be at liberty to prepare his defence for the trial that is to commence on 27 November. In particular, it transpires that the Crown has not yet served upon him any expert evidence to justify the findings that have been made relating to DNA. If no such evidence is provided, then at most the offender could only be guilty of receiving stolen goods. Whether the Crown is able to provide convincing expert evidence, is yet to be determined but clearly the appellant should have an opportunity of preparing his case. Currently, he is on remand in maximum security and does not have the ability to make necessary searches and inquiries whilst in custody.

6. Yesterday and this morning, I discussed with the Crown any particular conditions of bail sought. They have been explained to the appellant and he appears to be prepared to abide by those terms. The one matter that I should point out to Mr Gregory See, the appellant’s uncle, who was agreed to stand surety that the appellant has in fact breached parole previously, the applicant tells me he had not previously breached any conditions of bail but I have not had an opportunity of exploring that at any length. However, the breach of parole is more serious than a breach of bail. For those reasons, I make the following orders.

7. I grant bail to the applicant, subject to the Parole Board granting to the applicant Parole pursuant to the sentence passed by Arnott DCJ on 3 June 2016 (2011/00316447; 2012/00190669; 2013/00365174; 2015/00060980), and subject to any condition(s) imposed on that Parole by the Parole Board. The conditions I impose on the applicant’s bail are as follows:

1. The applicant is to be of good behaviour;

2. The applicant is to reside at Oaks Sydney North Ryde Suites at 58-62 Delhi Road, North Ryde;

3. The applicant is to observe a curfew between 9pm and 5am each night;

4. The applicant’s Father, Christopher John See, of Goonellabah, is to forfeit a surety in the sum of $3,000;

5. The applicant’s Uncle, Gregory See, of Paddington, is to forfeit a surety in the sum of $12,000;

6. The applicant is to report to the Police Station at Chatswood every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of each week between 8am and 8pm; and

7. The Applicant is to attend in person with or without any legal representatives at the readiness hearing at 2pm on 16 October 2023, at the trial callover on 23 November 2023, and the trial commencing 27 November 2023.

8. I grant leave to the applicant to seek a variation of bail conditions in the event that he finds employment that requires him to work during a period currently forbidden by curfew order.

9. I order the applicant, on release from custody, to seek treatment from a medical practitioner or medical practitioners concerning mental health, and to take any medication prescribed to him by that medical practitioner or medical practitioners.

Decision last updated: 01 November 2023