R v Wright

HIS HONOUR: The matter before the court is an application for bail in circumstances where there is no requirement as a preliminary for the applicant to show cause as to why bail ought be granted.

This is not a matter that the legislature has prescribed is an offence of such seriousness or committed in such circumstances that the ordinary presumptions do not apply. As a consequence I am required to look at the question of unacceptability of risk.

It is obvious that there is an unacceptable risk if not ameliorated by conditions. The only real issue is whether conditions can be imposed which ameliorate the risk. The most relevant risk is the one to the victim of the domestic violence offences, each of the other offences having been committed it seems as an ancillary aspect of the desire to perpetrate the domestic violence in question.

The applicant is not a person of whom it can be said there is an unacceptable risk of non-appearance but the issue of the risk of serious offence to the victim is one which has given me great concern. The applicant’s lengthy criminal record discloses repeat offending in relation to domestic violence and breaches of domestic violence orders and court orders generally in relation to the issues of his relationships.

The applicant says that he does not seek to deal with the victim, that is a commendable attitude in circumstances between now and the trial, but it must be qualified by the fact that most of the offences in question have been perpetrated in circumstances where the applicant was under the influence of either drugs or alcohol thereby qualifying the rational judgment that is displayed by that stated intention.

The question was posed that his background, which bespeaks typical circumstances for which the Court of Criminal Appeal in Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260, the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 and this Court in R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58, made mention and their relevance in bail.

The Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Michael John Brown [2013] NSWCCA 178 said this:

What is proposed is a situation where the applicant is to reside with a close relative in Lithgow, and not attend at Parkes, which is the residence of the victim over some period.

While I still have some concerns as to the risk associated with the liberty of the applicant, I consider that the injunction of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Brown, together with the conditions that have been imposed, are such that the liberty on bail is not in the circumstances unacceptable and bail will be granted.

In the matter of Luke Charles Wright, date of birth xx May 1984, for the charges of breach of bond, damage property said to have been committed on 2 March 2013, and the charges of common assault, two counts of damage property, one count of contravening an apprehended domestic violence order, one count of assault police officer in execution of duty, one count of resist police officer in execution of duty, one count of intimidation, one count of aggravated break and enter to commit serious indictable offence, malicious damage knowing persons are present, bail is granted subject to the following conditions.