Skura; Application for Bail

[2003] VSC 207

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1451 of 2003

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL

BY

DOROTHY MARIE SKURA

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 June 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 June 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In the matter of an application for bail by Dorothy Marie Skura
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 207

---

Criminal Law – Bail – Charge of Incitement to Murder – Plea of Guilty – Victim supporting application – Sentencing to prison likely – Bail refused

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R A Elston	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr R Stary	Rob Stary & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an application for bail made on behalf of Dorothy Marie Skura, by notice filed 3 June 2003.

1. The applicant was charged on 6 March 2003 with one count of incitement to murder.  The intended victim was her husband.

1. The applicant has indicated that she will plead guilty.  The hearing of the plea in mitigation has been fixed for 18 August next.

1. It is apparent, from the material that is placed before me, that has included an affidavit of Mr Stary, and the evidence of the victim, the applicant's husband, that there will be a considerable number of factors urged in mitigation.  The applicant's husband has indicated that he is substantially reconciled with the applicant.  He has provided a number of reasons why matters earlier set out in a statement made for the police ought to be looked at in a fresh light.  He has indicated steps that he has taken to care for the daughter of the applicant.  He has made it clear that he is significantly reconciled with her, and is willing to have the applicant return to the family home.

1. As to the matter of the factors urged in mitigation, it is to be noted that the applicant who is aged 38 is a Canadian national who is in Australia on a temporary visa. She and her daughter and husband came to Australia, settling in the start of last year, or approximately just over 12 months ago. Since she has been in custody she has received counselling for problems with alcohol and gambling. There will be other significant matters that could be argued upon a plea and that need to be allowed for in making an assessment of matters relevant under the Bail Act.

1. It is conceded that there is a prima facie entitlement to bail under the Bail Act.  On the other hand, the position is affected by the position that, under the common law, there would be no presumption of an entitlement to bail following a plea of guilty, and that is a matter that needs to be weighed in the balance, as do other matters under s.4(3), which requires a weighing of a number of factors when assessing, as I am obliged to assess, the question of whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused person, if released on bail, would fail to surrender herself into custody in answer to her bail.

1. There is no doubt that as to the nature and seriousness of the offence, incitement to murder is a very serious offence.  The maximum penalty under the Crimes Act is life imprisonment.  It is difficult to express in appropriate terms what can be said to be the prospect of a sentence of imprisonment, but it seems to me that there is at least a substantial prospect, having regard to review that I have made, and that has been confirmed in discussions during argument, of many or a significant number of recent sentences imposed for this offence.

1. There are other matters that can be weighed in favour of the applicant, and particularly matters referred to in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), which I will not go into in any detail, operate substantially in the applicant's favour.  Certainly the position of the intended victim is a matter of significance.  The trouble is that the position of the community is also of great importance and considerations of denunciation and general deterrence are crucial, particularly in a situation where there has been, by a plea of guilty, an acknowledgment of an attempt to arrange what amounted to a contract killing of a spouse.

1. The hearing of the plea is now only two months away.  Given the combination of the proximity of the hearing date of the plea, and the substantial prospect of a significant term of imprisonment, I have concluded that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would not surrender herself, and accordingly the application is refused.