The Queen v Ian Murray

[2012] ACTSC 54

THE QUEEN v IAN MURRAY
[2012] ACTSC 54 (22 March 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – bail – whether period of remand likely to exceed the sentence imposed – bail refused.
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – bail – change in circumstances – whether plea of guilty amounted to change in circumstances – s 20C of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) – bail refused.

Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 20C, 22

Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 92 FCR 168
Arman v Wall [2008] ACTSC 61
R v Roberts (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Higgins CJ, 14 September 2010)
R v Taylor (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Nield AJ, 25 February 2010)
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Burton v The Queen (1974) 3 ACTR 77

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No.  SCC 63 of 2011

Judge:             Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              22 March 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No.  SCC 63 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R

V

IAN MURRAY

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  22 March 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for bail dated 13 March 2012 is refused.

1. On 9 August 2010, the Magistrates Court made a Personal Protection Order for which the applicant for bail, Ian Murray, was the respondent.  That Protection Order was made to protect the complainant from certain acts of Mr Murray, namely, that he was prohibited from being on the premises where the complainant resided; from being on premises in Queanbeyan where the complainant worked; from being within 100 metres of the complainant except at court; and from contacting or causing another person to contact the complainant, except through a solicitor.

1. On 6 November 2010, Mr Murray breached that Protection Order by telephoning the complainant and speaking to her.  He continued to speak to her notwithstanding that she reminded him that he was breaching the Order.  The police were called and subsequently Mr Murray was charged. 

1. On 22 November 2010, Mr Murray attended at the complainant’s house where the complainant’s daughters were.  He left a garden tool at the house but had no contact with the complainant’s daughters.  Police were called and Mr Murray was charged. 

1. On 26 November 2010, the complainant received a call from Mr Murray in which he said, amongst other things, “If you ever, ever, ever hang up on me again, I am going to go out and smash that filthy junkie’s headstone.  This has gone far enough.  You and I will be talking.”   The reference to the headstone was a reference to the complainant’s late husband who was buried in a Canberra cemetery. 

1. On 30 November 2010, Mr Murray made contact by telephone with the daughter of the complainant, asking her to pass on a message of remorse or regret to the complainant.  That was the fourth of the offences for which Mr Murray was charged.

1. Mr Murray appeared in the Magistrates Court from time to time…