The Queen v Robert Michael Carberry

[2012] ACTSC 204

THE QUEEN V ROBERT MICHAEL CARBERRY
 [2012] ACTSC 204 (10 August 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – application for bail – no circumstances justifying the grant of bail – no statement of principle.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 367 of 2011

Judge:              Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:               10 August 2012                

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 367 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

R

v

ROBERT MICHAEL CARBERRY

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  10 August 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.          The application for bail is dismissed.

1.          This is a bail application by Robert Carberry, who stands for sentence on a charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on 22 August 2011.  He is to be sentenced on 13 September 2012.  He has been in custody since late last year on these charges. 

2.          He has applied for bail on the basis that his partner, who gave evidence before me, needs him to assist with the care of their two young children, who are four and two years old respectively.  She has a full-time job as a result of a special employment arrangement and is currently full-time employed in the ACT Public Service.  She is also a member of a World Cup team for OzTag, which requires her to attend training in Sydney every second weekend.

3.          Mr Carberry has a long and undistinguished record, including offences of a similar nature, and on his record are a number of breaches of good behaviour orders.  There were also drawn to my attention, two prior matters for breaching bail, but given that one of them is now 10 years old and the other three years old, and there are only two of them, it does not seem to me that that is a substantial basis, as required by the authorities, for saying that he is unlikely to respond to his obligations under any bail undertaking. 

4.          Nevertheless, the serious nature of the offences, the likelihood of a prison term when he is sentenced and his record shows that significant circumstances would need to be shown before a grant of bail could be made. 

5.          The Court is not unmindful of the stress that his incarceration places on the family and that is a matter of regret; it would certainly not be in the interests of the community for the family to be so stressed that they become dysfunctional or that there should be excessive problems for them.

6.          Nevertheless, in all the circumstances, it seems to me that the test for bail in these circumstances has not been made out and the application is refused.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Refshauge.

Associate:        

Date:               25 January 2013

Counsel for the Crown:  Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts
Solicitor for the Crown:  ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the accused:  Mr D Perkins
Solicitor for the accused:  Daryl Perkins Solicitors
Date of hearing:  10 August 2012
Date of judgment:  10 August 2012