The Queen v BB

[2013] ACTSC 92

THE QUEEN V BB
[2013] ACTSC 92 (14 May 2013)

JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – breach of bail – children and young people – failure to comply with direction to abstain from alcohol – turns on its own facts
JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – relevance of proximity to the sentence hearing date

Liquor Act2010 (ACT), Div 14.2

Burton v The Queen (1974) 3 ACTR 77
R v BB [2013] ACTSC 58

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 254 of 2012

Judge:             Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:               14 May 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 254 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          

R

v

BB

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  14 May 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Bail is to continue on the same terms and conditions as before.

1. On 25 March 2013, I granted [BB] bail before sentencing for three offences committed while subject to a suspended sentence that I had imposed on 14 February 2012 for twenty-six offences.

1. The history of his offending and the progress of the proceedings are set out in my decision, R v BB [2013] ACTSC 58. I do not need to repeat them here. I then detailed evidence of [BB]’s situation, and, over strenuous opposition by the Crown, I granted him bail to give him an opportunity to show that reform was possible and that I could weight that heavily in the sentence that I must impose in due course.

1. So as not to overburden [BB], which can be a recipe for failure, especially for those who are likely to have difficulty organising themselves as many offenders have, the bail conditions relied heavily on directions from the person I directed to supervise him.

THE BREACH OF BAIL

1. The evidence is that he was given a direction, inter alia, not to consume alcohol. While there are offences for children and young people buying liquor or consuming or possessing liquor in a public place (see Div 14.2 of the Liquor Act2010 (ACT)), it is not an offence for a young person, as is [BB], to consume liquor.

1. There was no evidence that [BB] had committed any of these offences, though he may have done so.  I should not speculate, however, even on a consideration of bail.

1. The evidence was that he and a fellow resident were picked up by a staff member of the accommodation where he was residing as he had been directed to reside, and the staff member found that both were intoxicated.  When questioned, [BB] said that he had, “just been having a good time, and had not had any alcohol”.  That was not only untrue, it was stupid, because he displayed obvious signs of intoxication.  He smelt of alcohol, his eyes were glazy, and he was hyperactive, loud and inappropriate.

1. About an hour later, after he had presumably sobered a little and one of his companions had been taken to hospital for intoxication, he confessed…