Woods v The State of Western Australia
[2015] WASC 41
•4 FEBRUARY 2015
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION: WOODS -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2015] WASC 41
CORAM: McKECHNIE J
HEARD: 2 FEBRUARY 2015
DELIVERED : 4 FEBRUARY 2015
FILE NO/S: MBA 3 of 2015
BETWEEN: CHAD BERNARD WOODS
Applicant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Bail - Whether a danger to any person - No new principles
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 (WA)
Result:
Bail granted on conditions
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr S D Freitag
Respondent: Mr A M Dungey
Solicitors:
Applicant: D G Price & Co
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
McKECHNIE J: The applicant is charged with seven breaches of a violence restraining order (VRO) in relation to two separate orders, aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm, stealing, deprivation of liberty and giving false personal details to police.
An application for bail was refused on 18 December 2014 and the applicant is to appear in the Magistrates Court on 23 February 2015.
The more serious charges must be dealt with on indictment and it may be many months before a trial.
One of the persons for whom a violence restraining order was obtained has now withdrawn that order and I leave facts about that out of consideration.
The charges of aggravated assault and deprivation of liberty concern the other person for whose benefit a VRO was obtained, whom I will call the complainant.
The only live issue is that in the Bail Act 1982 (WA) pt C, 1:
(a)whether, if the accused is not kept in custody, he may -
…
(iii)endanger the safety, welfare, or property of any person; or
(iv)interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
The prosecution case is still being investigated but in any event will depend principally on the evidence of the complainant. Relevant factual details are denied by the respondent. It is not possible to assess the strength or otherwise of the prosecution case.
Mr Freitag, who appeared for the applicant, frankly conceded that there seemed to be no defence to the breaches of VROs. The applicant's assertion that he breached on many occasions at the invitation of the complainant is, of course, no answer to the charge even though it may inform the eventual disposition.
The applicant is now aged 35. He has a persistent record mainly for driving offences but shows he has little regard for the restraints of the law. His attitude is exemplified by his continual disregard for the obligations of the VRO which he well knew was in effect.
The prosecution opposes the application. During the course of his submissions, Mr Dungey made reference to what he had been told were some of the applicant's responses to questions in a EROI made 17 December 2014. I said that I would need to view the EROI before deciding the application. After the hearing, the solicitor for the applicant loaned me his copy of the EROI. I have watched it. The EROI was conducted over nearly three hours and ranges over a number of subjects not relevant to this application.
It is immediately clear that the applicant has a serious drug problem, describing himself at one point as a 'drug addict', his particular drug of choice being methamphetamine which he says he consumed in considerable quantities with the complainant. Many of the alleged breaches of the VRO involved the use of methamphetamine by each of them.
During the course of the EROI the applicant made it clear that he knew of the existence of the VRO and was aware that contact was a breach of the VRO. At various times he made statements:
•'I'm totally in love with the girl';
•'I'm in love with her and she's contacting me';
•'I'm in love with her and I don't want to not contact her - never really gone a day or two days without talking to each other';
•'I go there because I'm in love with her';
•'I'm am besotted with the girl and I am obsessed';
•'It is time to let go for sure';
•'I want to marry her';
•'All I want to do is still pick up the phone like an idiot' (obscenities removed).
There is no evidence that the applicant has altered his views. It is submitted that he now has been in prison for more than a month and has had time to reflect. That may be so. It would be so for an ordinary person. Whether it is so for a besotted lover is less certain, especially one addicted to methamphetamine.
The complainant lives about 150 kms from the proposed address of the applicant who will reside with his parents if granted bail. In answer to a question from me the applicant says that he is a concrete worker with his own company and would have work available.
There is no reason other than the safety and security of the complainant for the applicant to remain in custody for what may be a lengthy period before trial. I am satisfied that the complainant can be adequately protected if the applicant is released to bail under stringent conditions.
Mr Freitag proposed a number of conditions on a grant of bail. However, I regard them as insufficient to fully protect the complainant. The orders I make are that the applicant be released from custody on entering into a bail agreement with the following conditions:
1.Entering into a personal undertaking in the sum of $15,000.
2.Providing a surety in the sum of $15,000.
3.To reside at 57 Eucalypt Drive, Gelorup.
4.To report to the Officer‑in‑Charge, Bunbury Police Station once every 24 hours at a time specified by the Officer‑in‑Charge.
5.Not to take any drug prohibited under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA).
6.Not to contact the complainant directly or indirectly by any means whatever.
7.Not to be within 500 metres of the complainant except within a court proceeding in which each are involved.
In order to ensure a fair trial, this judgment is not to be available in electronic form until further order of this court or order of the trial judge on completion of the trial.
0
0
1