The Queen v Miles
[2015] ACTSC 410
•9 December 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | The Queen v Miles |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 410 |
Hearing Date(s): | 9 December 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 9 December 2015 |
Before: | Walmsley AJ |
Decision: | The application for bail is refused. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – application for bail – mental health concerns – self-represented applicant – likelihood of custodial sentence – risk of reoffending |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 403(1), 404(1) Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 22 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Jordan Miles (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms M Moss (Crown) Mr J Miles (Self-represented) (Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mr J Miles (Self-represented) (Defendant) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 249 of 2015 |
WALMSLEY AJ:
Mr Miles was born on 4 May 1978. He is 37 years of age. He recently pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to three counts. The first is arson, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment (s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)). The second and third offences are of damaging property and they each carry the maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (s 403(1) of the Criminal Code).
In evidence before me was a Statement of Facts prepared by police. Mr Miles told me that he did not disagree with the facts outlined. According to those facts, on 26 October 2015, there was an argument between Mr Miles and his father at his father’s home in Kambah, in the course of which Mr Miles, when in possession of two kitchen knives, attempted to jump on his father. His mother called police and police came but Mr Miles’s parents told police that they did not wish proceedings to be taken against him. At that stage, it seems, he had left the premises.
He returned to the premises later, however, and there was what could only be described as a siege. He was in a highly agitated mood. He was very abusive towards the police. He had possession of a cordless power drill and a kitchen knife and he had a most aggressive demeanour. He told police several times that he was in for the long haul and they would need to get the TRG (Tactical Response Group) to get him out.
Eventually he barricaded himself in the premises and told police he was happy to go up in a fireball. He spread accelerant in the house and lit it. The house caught fire and considerable damage was done. Eventually police managed to subdue him and he was taken from the house to hospital.
While he was in hospital, he made comments suggesting that he might have considered suicide.
But Mr Miles told me they had been jocular comments on his part, and I accept that. It may not have been a situation where he was truly contemplating suicide. He did apparently, (and I think he concedes this), say to police: “I should have done it the 308 way”, which I took to be a reference to behaving in such a way as would lead to his being shot by police.
On the assumption that he maintains his pleas and he is sentenced for these offences I think it probable that he will receive a gaol sentence.
There are clearly mental health issues involved in this case. Evidence was given by Ms J Minchin, a social worker from Forensic Mental Services. She told me that a Forensic Mental Health Report has been ordered but it will be some time before it is prepared and available. Currently, unfortunately, he has no lawyers who can hurry this along or, indeed, help him in any other way.
He is currently being seen by the mental health team in the prison system and occasionally by Dr Wyatt, a psychiatrist. Dr Wyatt, according to Ms Minchin, is currently obtaining what she describes as “collateral information” from his family.
The informant police officer, Constable Goodwin, gave me the facts. He told me that he was in attendance at the siege. He said that he has some concerns arising from what Mr Miles did and what he said on the day of the incidents, although he did say Mr Miles has no access to firearms.
Constable Goodwin has spoken to the applicant’s mother, who said she is not yet comfortable about having Mr Miles back in the home but thinks he would be safe in the community, provided no alcohol is involved. She also said that he may have employment available to him. His father, apparently, told her that he is of the same mind as her.
Constable Goodwin said that if Mr Miles is bailed he would have accommodation available to him at Samaritan House but he would have to make an application. I understand from the applicant that he does, in fact, have confirmation of accommodation there.
Constable Goodwin said that the incident was a very long one; it tied up a lot of officers, approximately 20 to 25. He is concerned that if Mr Miles is granted bail, the risk of offending is great. See s 22 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT).
As the Crown said, there is a neutral position concerning bail. There is no presumption for or against.
Mr Miles submitted that he should have bail. If he has bail he will have better access to mental health facilities, he will be able to work, and he will be able to make a contribution to the community. Further, there are difficulties for him about his continued imprisonment because where he is located means that he is associating with some people associated with an offence against his partner.
I bear in mind the criteria for granting bail. There is no suggestion that he would not appear, when called upon, in relation to the offences to which he has pleaded guilty. I take into account that it would be in his interests to have bail so that he can work and have access to proper facilities, which I consider are probably not as good in the AMC as they are in the community. And, of course, as he says, he would have available to him the company of his siblings, who are, apparently, living in the Canberra community. He would also have access to his parents, but would not live with them.
However, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, the fact that he will probably receive a full‑time gaol sentence, his unresolved mental health issues, and that there was not put forward by him or on his behalf a treatment regime which would give me confidence that he would attend for and be properly treated in the community, I consider the risk of his re-offending is too great and, accordingly, I refuse bail.
[His Honour then spoke directly to Mr Miles]
Now, Mr Miles, under the law in the ACT, you are entitled to make other applications, and, if you were properly represented and your lawyer puts forward a proper regime, it is possible that you would do better. At the moment, I just do not have the confidence, unfortunately, that you would attend and continue to maintain good behaviour, and accordingly I have had to make the decision that I have made.
| I certify that the preceding eighteen [18] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Justice Walmsley. Associate: Date: 15 February 2016 |
0
0
2