The Queen v Blundell
[2015] ACTSC 388
•4 December 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | The Queen v Blundell |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 388 |
Hearing Date(s): | 4 December 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 4 December 2015 |
Before: | Walmsley AJ |
Decision: | The application for bail is refused. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – bail application – threat to kill – threat to cause grievous bodily harm – damage property – risk of reoffending – risk to community – history of violence – mental health problems – accused undergoing counselling – drug abuse – strong likelihood of custodial sentence if convicted |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 22 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Peter Blundell (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms J Campbell (Crown) Mr H Jorgensen (Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid (ACT) (Defendant) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 171 of 2015 |
WALMSLEY AJ:
Peter Blundell, who was born on 11 September 1980, has a considerable criminal history and is in custody serving another sentence. The trial for the current charges is due to be heard on 7 March 2016.
Those offences for which he is awaiting trial are threat to kill, threat to cause grievous bodily harm and damage property. He is currently serving a sentence which is due to expire on 22 December 2015. Today he applied for bail on the trial matters so that he can be released on 22 December when his sentence for other matters expires.
One of the alleged victims of the pending charges, or at least the trial matters, has, since the relevant offence occurred, died of unrelated causes. Another significant witness, a woman who is Mr Blundell’s former girlfriend, is now in custody. I was not told how long she is expected to remain in custody. There is a third witness of significance who the Crown expects it will call at that trial and he is still alive and in the local community.
The offender is suspected additionally by New South Wales Police of having committed arson at a house in Murrumbateman, the house being the home of his former girlfriend's parents. There is evidence suggesting that a fire occurred at that house in suspicious circumstances, however, although police are said to have suspicions that he may be the offender, he has never been charged in respect to that offence.
A cousin who lives at Monash is prepared to have him live with her if he is granted bail.
The Crown opposed bail. Ms J Campbell, who appeared for the Crown, relied on two attempt escape custody offences when he was a juvenile but more significantly, she relied on the fact that he might re-offend.
The offences with which he has been charged are significant and occurred when he was on conditional liberty. He has a history of violence and a poor control of his emotional state, thus representing for the community a high risk. He has, it was submitted, a significant drug and mental health problem, emphasising that high risk.
Mr H Jorgensen, who appeared for the applicant, submitted that as one of the witnesses is dead and another, his ex-girlfriend, is in custody, the risks of re-offending relevant to them are greatly reduced. Further, he is on antidepressant medication and he is having one on one weekly counselling and is also participating in group counselling therapy in the prison system. Further, as I have noted (above at [5]), he has accommodation to go to and he has only one matter in his extensive criminal history for failing to appear when on bail.
I have had regard for all of the provisions of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) which are relevant, in particular, s 22. As to the likelihood of his appearing in court for these offences for which he is awaiting trial, I consider, given his history when on bail, that he is likely to appear.
His likelihood of re-offending or contacting prosecution witnesses is a matter which I think is very much tied up in his mental health state. When he was arrested, for other matters, on 19 August 2014, which was the day of the suspicious Murrumbateman fire, he tried to harm or perhaps kill himself. After that he was treated in the Mental Health Unit at the Canberra Hospital and at the time of those offences he was on bail and was not reliable in meeting his bail requirements.
Although he tried to harm himself several times, Dr Gunaratne, psychiatrist, said that his self-harm efforts were not caused by a mental illness but because of multiple factors. He came to the view that there is a chronically high risk of harm to others if he is in the community. It has to be noted, of course, that that was a report dated 27 August 2014.
An alcohol and drug assessment done earlier this year suggested that he had multiple drug problems, including, in particular, an ice problem which dates from the time when he first began using ice 10 years ago at age 25.
He has had an extremely deprived childhood which must account significantly for his behavioural problems. Some of his offences include carrying somewhat dangerous weapons but his history, which includes, as a child, having to live out in the rough and fend for himself, does give an explanation for why, at various times, he may have thought it useful to carry a weapon.
I have considered, in light of his medical and drug history and offending generally, Mr Blundell’s likelihood of offending if on bail or his likelihood of harassing witnesses. If he is on medication and continues to have the counselling treatment that he has been having then that must, I think, reduce the prospects that he will harass any witnesses or engage in other offending but, in view of his mental health history, including his attempts at self-harm and including the views of the psychiatrist, I am very cautious about that issue.
The case against him seems, on the Crown facts, to be strong and, if he is convicted of those offences, I think it probable that he will receive a custodial sentence.
I have, of course, considered that it is in his interests to be in the community on bail, having the capacity to instruct his lawyers and prepare for his trial but, although it would be in his interest there is, I think, a real risk of re-offending while he is on bail. He has a very significant mental health history. There is the view of the psychiatrist, to which I have referred, of the risk to others, which he says is chronic.
The alcohol and drug assessment speaks of his multiple drug problems, especially his ice use since 25. Though if he is on treatment in the community he is less likely to harm others or to re-offend, I am extremely cautious about his ability to remain on that treatment in the community and be someone who is safe to others and not likely to re-offend. I take on board the fact that the applicant told me this morning of his treatment but I am not at all confident that, if permitted back into the community, he would remain on the treatment program.
The case against him, as I have noted (above at [15]), is strong and will probably lead to a custodial sentence. The period until the trial is approximately three months which, in the scheme of things, I think is not a lengthy period.
In taking all of the matters into account I am not persuaded a case has been made out for bail. The application is refused.
| I certify that the preceding nineteen [19] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Justice Walmsley. Associate: Date: 15 February 2016 |
0
0
1