Dennis Bradley LACEY R I P 01/06/90 - 06/02/21 A life just not worth living Lee Anne LACEY grieving mother has to pay for $6,888 Funeral in Darwin Public contributions are gratefully accepted BSB 325-185 ACC 0341 6001 Territory Funeral Services - PO Box 2711, Palmerston NT 0831 0438 637 258 Northern Land Council NLC Chief Executive Officer Marion Scrymgour PA Kiara Petterson PetteK@NLC.org.au to P 618 8920 5102 F 618 8945 2633 Address: 76 Dick Ward Drive, Coconut Grove NT 0810 Mail: PO Box 1098 Nightcliff NT 0810 Email: F 08 8948 3733 IN MEMORY OF DENNY BEAR Albania
In the matter of an application for bail by Lacey [2010] ACTSC 82 (10 August 2010)
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL BY 
[2010] ACTSC 82 (10 August 2010)
BAIL – Bail review from Magistrate’s decision to refuse bail – Bail review under section 43 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT).
BAIL REVIEW – Offer of employment that was not available when applicant was refused bail in ACT Magistrates Court - sufficient change in circumstances to review refusal of bail.
BAIL REVIEW – Factors to take into account: family support, offer of employment, previous breaches of bail, applicant avoidance of apprehension after breaching bail, upcoming hearing in the ACT Magistrates Court, applicant previously granted bail on the offences – turns on its own facts
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – New evidence adduced every occasion the matter was mentioned often without notice to respondent – Bail application lacked sufficient detail - Poor practice – Delays in bail application.
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 312
Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 43(2)(a), (b)
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 18, 30
In the matter of an application for bail by Skeen [2009] 3 ACTLR 53
R v Kristiansen [2008] ACTSC 30
In the matter of an application for bail by Paul Blundell [2008] ACTSC 138
In an application for bail by Merritt (No. 2) [2010] ACTSC 7
In an application for bail by Massey (No 3) [2010] ACTSC 52
Burton v The Queen (1974) 3 ACTR 77
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SCC 19 of 2010
Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 10 August 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 19 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL BY
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge J
Date: 10 August 2010
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Mr Lacey is granted bail to appear at the ACT Magistrates Court on 18 August 2010.
2. The conditions of his bail are:
i. that he accepts supervision of an officer of ACT Corrective Services delegated by the Chief Executive or her delegate to supervise him and to obey all reasonable directions of that officer, especially as to drug and alcohol treatment and counselling;
ii. that he reside at an address provided to the ACT Supreme Court;
iii. that he not absent himself from his place of residence between the hours of 8 pm and 6.30 am daily;
iv. that he abstain from the use of illicit drugs and from alcohol;
v. that he submit, as and when required, to breath analysis and urinalysis;
vi. that he report to the officer in charge of City Police Station each day between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm;
vii. that he not contact directly or indirectly, assault, threaten, harass or intimidate Trent Bryant Barden, Brent Peter Smith-Roberts, Michelle Phillips Freeman, Holly Williams or Andrew Raymond Reeves;
viii. that he not approach or be within 100 metres of Trent Bryant Barden, Brent Peter Smith-Roberts, Michelle Phillips-Freeman, Holly Williams or Andrew Raymond Reeves;
ix. that he not operate a motor vehicle, be in possession of the keys of or be in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle.
x. that he not be in a motor vehicle which fails to obey a direction by a police officer to stop;
xi. that he not be within 100 metres of Northbourne Flats, Forbes Street, Turner;
xii. that he commence and maintain employment with Mr Wayne Fleming, and if that employment is not offered or is terminated for any reason, he report within 24 hours to the Registrar of the ACT Supreme Court for reconsideration of bail and bail conditions; and
xiii. that he report to ACT Corrective Services, Eclipse House, Canberra City, on 4 August 2010 to arrange supervision.
1. 
2. These offences arose out of an incident said to have occurred in a unit in Northbourne Flats, Turner, ACT, when the occupier of the unit was threatened with a hammer by two people, one of whom is alleged to have been Mr Lacey, and money and electronic equipment taken.
3. The incident, as described in the police Statement of Facts would have been very frightening for the occupier, and the hammer, which was used to threaten him, was actually struck into his door, just near his head, leaving an indentation in the door which, the Statement of Facts describes with some understatement as causing the occupier “to have fear for his safety and welfare.”
4. Mr Lacey is to face the ACT Magistrates Court for these charges on 18 August 2010. He is pleading not guilty, but for the purposes of the bail application, I must assume that there are reasonable prospects that the prosecution will be able to prove the charges. He is currently in custody, bail having been refused in the Magistrates Court on 15 July 2010. He has sought a review of that decision. The precise circumstances under which that occurred is not completely clear.
5. Mr Lacey prepared the bail application himself, so a number of matters which would have been helpful for me to understand the details of how that came about and why are not immediately apparent.
6. Ms K Bolas who appears for Mr Lacey, has managed to help me to understand much that cannot be gleaned from the application for bail and supporting affidavit but, there are still some significant and troubling gaps.
7. The application has also been a progressive feast, with new evidence being adduced on every occasion that it was mentioned, often without notice to the respondent which has delayed the matter.
8. It appears that Mr Lacey came before the court on these charges some time in late 2009. The incident was alleged to have occurred on 13 September 2009. Mr Lacey was interviewed by police on 28 September 2009. A photograph of Mr Lacey was taken on 13 October 2009 for the purposes of inclusion in a Video Photo Board. The Video Photo Board was shown to the occupier of the premises on 23 October 2009, and he identified Mr Lacey. I assume that Mr Lacey was taken to court some time thereafter, but whether under arrest or by summons, the material I have does not enable me to say.
9. He appears to have been granted bail. His co-offender has been and remains on bail for these offences. On 21 October 2009, he was apprehended by police after he was seen driving a stolen motor vehicle. He was seen by police, then drove off, and the police chased him, involving driving through a red light. Police were required to take evasive action to avoid a collision during the pursuit. The chase was terminated, and Mr Lacey was arrested when later sighted by police, although he initially ran away from them. Again, the details are not clear, but Mr Lacey appears to have been granted bail.
10. He appeared before the courts a number of times, but on 16 January 2010, he appeared before the court, having been arrested for failing to report to police, apparently in accordance with his bail conditions. This was the second time he had failed to report on this bail. He had done so also and been arrested and brought before the court on 28 November 2009. On this earlier occasion, he was warned that if he failed to report again, bail might be refused. Bail was refused on 16 January 2010.
11. Mr Lacey applied for bail to this court to have the refusal reviewed. It was initially refused by Penfold J on 22 January 2010. He made a further application and was granted by Master Harper on 29 January 2010 with conditions, including that he reside at 28 Lowanna Street Braddon, and with a curfew, daily reporting conditions and conditions requiring him not to use illicit drugs or alcohol, submit to breath analysis and urinalysis, as required, and restricting his access to and use of a motor vehicle.
12. His freedom on bail was short lived. On 4 February 2010, he was sentenced for the various charges arising out of his non-consensual driving of the motor vehicle and his dangerous manner of driving during the police pursuit. He was sentenced to a total period of imprisonment for six months to commence on 23 January 2010, presumably to take into account his pre-sentence custody, and fined $500.
13. He came before Chief Magistrate Burns on 13 May 2010 for a charge of damaging property, which occurred on 11 November 2010. I have no details of that. His Honour imposed a sentence of three months imprisonment, but suspended it with a good behaviour order.
14. It is not clear to me how the current charges of aggravated burglary and theft came before the Magistrates Court on 15 July 2010. It may simply be that they had been adjourned to that date from some earlier time. Doing the best I can, it seems that on these charges, Mr Lacey had been on bail up until that time in respect of these charges, though, of course, he had been serving a sentence of imprisonment for the other charges for much of that time. Neither Ms Bolas nor Ms K Weston-Scheuber, who appeared for the respondent on 23 July 2010, nor Ms S Jowitt, who appeared for the respondent on 30 July 2010, told me that, though I concede that I did not then ask.
15. While it may not make much difference, I now find in trying to work through both the chronology and the relevant matters on which to come to a decision on this matter, it would have been very helpful to have a full understanding of these matters in a properly presented bail application.
16. In any event, the learned Magistrate refused bail. The reasons were not absolutely clear. Unfortunately, I did not have the advantage of copies of the bench sheets from the Magistrates Court on which the Magistrate often notes in a summary form the reasons for refusing bail. See In the matter of an application for bail by Skeen [2009] 3 ACTLR 53 (at 56[10]).
17. On his application, Mr Lacey stated the reasons as follows:
One reason is that my mother has failed (sic) to appear for a court date and has a warrent (sic) and the judge fears I wont (sic) appear and will join my mother.
18. It appears that Mr Lacey’s mother had told the police officer that she was going to take Mr Lacey to the Northern Territory and that he would not be returning. The police officer took this to mean that he would not be returning to face these charges.
19. Today I heard evidence from Ms Lacey who returned from the Northern Territory about three weeks ago and surrendered to the police today. Notwithstanding that late surrender, she was granted bail in the Magistrates Court after appearing there this morning. I understand that the charge is an assault charge, perhaps explaining the decision of the Magistrates Court.
20. Mr T Hickey, who appeared today, cross-examined Mr Lacey. He did so at short notice, because no notice of this evidence appears to have been given. It is unfortunate that the course of the application meant that three prosecutors were involved, all in adducing or responding to evidence in the course of it. That cannot have been entirely satisfactory to the respondent to the application, and is to be avoided, if possible.
21. The learned Magistrate who heard Mr Lacey’s bail application, also appeared concerned by Mr Lacey’s criminal history. It is a long and concerning one. It includes dishonesty offences, five counts of aggravated robbery, burglary, misuse of motor vehicles, and of special concern to her Honour, escape from arrest or custody on two occasions, a total of 43 offences found proved, dating from 2005.
22. The bail application initially came before me on 23 July 2010. It was, of course, a review of the decision of the learned Magistrate under s 43 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act). That requires either:
(a) a significant change in circumstances relevant to the granting of bail; or
(b) the availability of fresh evidence or information of material significance to the granting of bail to the person that was unavailable on the most recent application in relation to bail.
23. The matters said to satisfy these criteria were that Mr Lacey had a job offer which he did not have at the time he appeared before the learned Magistrate and that the release date from his custodial sentence had now passed. He was eligible for release, of course, on 22 July 2010. Ms Bolas frankly explained that:
His friend had told him that there’s a job if he’s released on bail. He has nothing else before the court. He has been in custody, your Honour. There’s no letter from an employer. I suppose he hasn’t spoken to the employer. Just that his mate said there’s an opening and he can start on Monday if he’s given bail.
24. Ms Weston-Scheuber submitted that an offer of employment did not constitute a significant change in circumstances. I have held elsewhere that, in the light of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (Human Rights Act), provisions such as s 43 of the Bail Act have to be given a liberal interpretation and so far as possible to do so consistent with the purposes of the legislation and interpretation compatible with human rights (s 30) and a right to liberty and not to be detained in custody as a general rule is one of those rights (s 18). See R v Kristiansen [2008] ACTSC 83.
25. While it must very much depend on circumstances, for a person in the position of Mr Lacey, a job is a significant matter, giving a degree of structure to his life and an occupation and resources which militate against continued offending. In my view, an offer of employment in these circumstances and not available when bail was refused does satisfy the test in s 43 of the Bail Act sufficient to justify me embarking on a review of the refusal of bail.
26. The assertion of the employment position was, however, so flimsy that I was not prepared to rely on the mere reference to its availability made by Ms Bolas from the Bar table. I required Ms Bolas to seek more information and better details. I adjourned the application till later in the day so that that could be done.
27. Before the adjournment, I heard evidence from Constable Brett Katz. I shall not detail that evidence at this stage but summarise it later with the further evidence he later gave.
28. When the matter resumed after the adjournment, Ms Bolas informed me that the job had been given to someone else and so was no longer available.
29. Ms Bolas then made reference to the Human Rights Act and the fact that until convicted of these offences, Mr Lacey was to be regarded as innocent.
30. I pointed out to Ms Bolas that the Bail Act was not inconsistent with the Human Rights Act. I so held in In the matter of an application for bail by Paul Blundell [2008] ACTSC 138 (at [2]). I remain of that view. As noted above, the Human Rights Act might affect the interpretation of particular provisions, but the notion of refusal of bail is not inconsistent with the right to liberty in s 18 of the Human Rights Act.
31. After some further submissions, I stood the application over generally. I said at the time:
I would be prepared to adjourn this matter on the basis that until I have a clear indication of a job, and I’d want some real evidence of that, and I would suggest that you might put on some material about the living conditions and circumstances that might give some comfort to the court and probably the certificate of what he’s done about his alcohol and drug issues while he’s in AMC. In those circumstances it may be that, I mean, I can’t give a guarantee, but if those matters are addressed then I think there would be a strong case for a grant of bail.
32. I did point out that I would prefer an affidavit to be filed prior to relisting, or at least to inform the respondent by email detailing what is proposed with copies of relevant documents so that the respondent had an opportunity to investigate the proposal.
33. An application was relisted on 30 July 2010. Ms Bolas advised that a Mr Wayne Fleming was prepared to offer Mr Lacey a job working with him as a roofer. Ms Bolas had spoken to Mr Fleming, but he was presently interstate and unable to put anything in writing. He was prepared to give evidence to the court by telephone.
34. None of this information, however, was provided in advance to the respondent. As I pointed out in In an application for bail by Merritt (No. 2) [2010] ACTSC 7 (at [9] – [10]), proper notice must be given or applications will be adjourned so that the respondent can properly prepare a response to the application and, if required, conduct any necessary investigations or make any necessary inquiries. If that results in the applicant’s remaining in custody during such adjournments, so be it. Fortunately, both the parties and I were available later that day, so the matter was adjourned so that the evidence of Mr Fleming could be taken later in the day.
35. Mr Fleming then subsequently gave evidence by telephone. He confirmed that he had met Mr Lacey about three years ago. He was out of town at the present, but would return in the middle of the week commencing Sunday 1 August 2010. He was a subcontractor for a roofing company and could employ Mr Lacey in that work when he returned. He noted that Mr Lacey had never worked for him before and expressed the view that he thought that, with a little help, Mr Lacey would be able to take the chance of the job offered and “step forward in life.”
36. In cross-examination, it turned out that Mr Fleming had most recently been in jail with Mr Lacey. He had been sentenced for drink-driving offences. He had an extensive criminal record, including contravention of domestic violence orders, resisting police, trespass, threatening violence, obtaining money by deception and had twice been declared an habitual offender. It further turned out that Mr Lacey would be taken on as an employee on a probationary basis. Mr Fleming would test him out as a worker and give him a chance. If he performs well as a casual, he would be given a full-time job.
37. The other matters in support of Mr Lacey’s bail application came largely from Ms Bolas. Mr Lacey did offer some statements from the well of the court. Though not sworn evidence, and so, not testable by cross-examination, I can take them into account.
38. The following matters were relied on as supporting the application: Mr Lacey denied that he was going to join his mother in the Northern Territory. He had not spoken to her for five months. He wanted to live with his girlfriend, make something of that relationship. He knew that if he wanted to change address, he would likely have to return to court and seek a bail variation.
39. While in the Alexander Maconochie Centre, he had undertaken some alcohol and drug programs. He had a certificate, though, regrettably, it was not initially produced. Since then, I have seen it, and it attests to his completion of the First Steps Program. This is commendable. He said that since he had been with his girlfriend, in about June 2009, he had been not drinking or using drugs.
40. I note that these offences were alleged to have been committed well after he began the relationship with his girlfriend, as indeed were the offences for which he was recently imprisoned.
41. Mr Lacey said that this first dose of jail had made him realise that this was not what he wanted. He had been in Quamby Youth Detention Centre before, but this was different. He said:
I know that if I muck up ever again, jail is the only way I can go. I know that jail is the only way if I do do bad, but I’m not going to do anything bad. I can’t afford it.
I guarantee, like, the first time thing I’ll be doing, if grant bail, is looking for work, because I know that crime’s not the way no more. Like, I can’t spend any more time in jail. It’s not worth it.
42. Mr Lacey then gave oral evidence before me today and was cross-examined. He confirmed under affirmation his commitment to change. I note he had also received a head injury in 1996, which makes memory difficult for him, perhaps partly explaining the failure to comply with bail conditions, though not the failure to surrender to police after breaching.
43. I realise that such statements must be treated with great caution and I do hesitate to accept them at full value. Nevertheless, it is possible that this is a genuine realisation that the direction his life has taken so far is one that must be changed.
44. Ms Bolas submitted that a big difference from the previous criminal circumstances is that this time he has his girlfriend’s family to support him and this was new. He also now has his mother, who has returned to Canberra, and who wishes him to live with her.
45. Ms Bolas also noted that, despite the two convictions for escaping custody, he had never failed to appear in court, even when he knew that he was going to lose his liberty. That seems to be admitted.
46. The evidence of Constable Katz in opposition to bail was given, as noted above (at [27]), on two occasions. I will summarise the effect of it together, for the second occasion expanded the earlier evidence rather than introducing fresh matters. The concerns were as follows.
47. Constable Katz reported a conversation he had had with Mr Lacey’s mother in January 2010 when she told him that she intended to take Mr Lacey to the Northern Territory. She herself had now gone there and thereby avoided court commitments, a warrant being currently in existence for her arrest. That, of course, is now different, because Ms Lacey has surrendered herself to the Magistrates Court and is on bail.
48. Constable Katz was of the understanding that Mr Lacey’s mother was intending to take Mr Lacey away to avoid these matters before the court. While that is a concern, I note that Mr Lacey wishes to spend time with his girlfriend and her family who can provide some support for him here. I also note, as recorded above (at [38]), that Mr Lacey said he had not spoken to his mother for five months while she was in the Northern Territory, indeed, there was no apparent enticement for him to go there, though he was, for most of this time, in custody. In any event, Mr Lacey’s mother has now returned and explained that she was never intending to move to the Northern Territory permanently and has no residence there.
49. Constable Katz was also concerned that Mr Lacey was known to engage in car pursuits to avoid apprehension. Further, his girlfriend was on at least one occasion the driver in such a pursuit and, she attempted to drive off from police to avoid the apprehension of Mr Lacey.
50. Of course, after the most recent pursuit, Mr Lacey was apprehended and imprisoned for offences committed during the pursuit. He has expressed a wish not to return to jail. That might be said to cut both ways: on the one hand, deterring him from such future acts or, on the other hand, encouraging greater efforts to avoid apprehension. Given that he is so well-known to police and does turn up at court (he has never been convicted of a fail to appear offence), I am inclined to believe that the former is more likely.
51. Constable Katz also noted a long history of breaching bail conditions and in avoiding apprehension for them, sometimes avoiding apprehension for months. For example, he breached a bail condition on 18 April 2007 and was not apprehended until 24 May 2007. Similarly, he breached a bail condition on 31 December 2008 and was not arrested until 8 January 2009. On 1 February 2009 and 19 March 2009, he breached a bail condition on each occasion, but was not arrested until 5 June 2009.
52. Curiously, he next breached a bail condition on 4 April 2009. He surrendered himself to police on that day. It seems curious that the two earlier breaches in February and March were not dealt with at that time. On 17 November 2009, he breached a bail condition. Again, he surrendered himself to police. He was warned by the Magistrate that a further breach may result in refusal of further bail.
53. Constable Katz said that he breached his bail on 18 December 2009. He said he was not apprehended until 4 February 2010. That is inconsistent with the court records, for he was before the Magistrates Court on 16 January 2010 for that breach and remanded in custody until given bail on 29 January 2010. He did attend court on 4 February 2010 and was imprisoned as noted above (at [12]).
54. These are all serious matters. Compliance with bail conditions is an important matter. As I said in the matter of In an application for bail by Massey (No 3) [2010] ACTSC 52 (at [23]-[24]):
23. A breach of a condition of bail will ordinarily result in the arrest and immediate incarceration of the bailee. The trust that the court places in the accused to be permitted to be at liberty on the conditions imposed is breached by the failure to comply with the conditions, and it is only by compliance with the conditions imposed that the accused is to be at liberty.
24. Certainly, many breaches do not result in continued detention. It is not infrequent that an accused person has on one or two occasions failed through forgetfulness to report to police as required. There are often minor breaches occasioned by the understandable frailty of human memory.
55. This continued breaching of bail conditions does give me pause. It substantially undermines any confidence I can have that any condition I set to meet the proper concerns expressed by the police will result in compliance by Mr Lacey. He must realise that he will suffer the consequences of these failures to comply with conditions in being refused bail in the future because, to put it bluntly, the court cannot trust him to do what is required by it.
56. Constable Katz was further concerned that Mr Lacey would interfere with witnesses. He informed the court that Mr Lacey knew the address of the complainant. He referred, too, to other witnesses who have declined to provide statements to police because they feared retribution from Mr Lacey. These are, of course, very concerning allegations. They are, of necessity, vague. They have, of course, been risks that have existed since September 2009, and I note that, since then, Mr Lacey has been at large or on bail for a not inconsiderable part of that time.
57. Constable Katz also expressed concern about the associates with whom Mr Lacey will have contact at the address where his girlfriend lives. The address was, in Constable Katz’s words, “linked to” criminals, and, in particular, recidivist property offenders. He gave some details. The occupiers themselves are, however, not known to police as committing crimes or currently on charges. They are family members.
58. This is something like the old discredited concept of the offence of consorting. In Australian society, it is likely that, in fact, for social reasons and history, Aboriginal people will have criminal records. I do not discount this concern, but it is a little modified by the fact that the actual occupiers of the proposed residence, are not in this category. This is clearly of less concern if Mr Lacey is to live with his mother and that is now what is proposed.
59. These are, however, all powerful reasons to deny Mr Lacey bail. In addition, the hearing in the Magistrates Court is only a fortnight away. As was said by Fox J in Burton v The Queen (1974) 3 ACTR 77 (at 79) the imminence of the hearing can justify refusal of bail that otherwise may be reconsidered.
60. It seems to me, however, that the courts must also take a longer view. Mr Lacey will ultimately be released to the community, though, if convicted of these charges, he can expect a further sentence of full-time jail. If he can be reinforced in his present view that he does not want to continue going to jail, if he can gain family support, albeit including the family of his girlfriend, and if he can gain some work, these are powerful factors which will help him to overcome his sad and appalling criminal past.
61. That he has never failed to appear in court is significant. I suppose there will be a first time, but he must know that this will very largely prevent any further grants of bail, at least for serious offences.
62. I am particularly influenced by the fact that he has been on bail for these very offences. Indeed, he was even granted bail on the charges arising out of the police pursuit. I find it hard to see exactly what has changed, though, of course, he was convicted and sentenced to jail for these latter charges. Nevertheless, that also points two ways, for his expressed desire to avoid further jail has been the consequence of that incarceration.
63. So far as witnesses are concerned, that did not seem to cause bail to be denied at an earlier time. Indeed, the allegations are vague and unspecific. They may be accurate, so I will impose relevant conditions, but I am also cognisant that there is a history of breaching bail conditions. He must now know, however, that further breaches will inevitably lead to further denials of bail, if not further charges. The proximity of the hearing also minimises the risk.
64. I am cautious about the job and the character of his employer, Mr Fleming. Nevertheless, there was nothing suggested to lead me to believe that it is other than a proper job without criminal overtones. I was, I must confess, disappointed that the application did not provide better details of the business. A reference from the business to which it is a contractor would have been helpful, some details of where Mr Lacey is to be employed would have been useful, and so on. I appreciate that bail applications are often made in a hurry. The risk, however, is that bail will be refused because good evidence, such as this, or Mr Lacey’s drug and alcohol course certificate, which could have been provided, were not provided.
65. This is, for me, a finely balanced application. I am, however, prepared to grant Mr Lacey bail on very stringent conditions. He must now realise that any breach of bail will make it extremely difficult for him to be granted further bail in the future.
66. Mr Lacey I will grant you bail to appear at the ACT Magistrates Court on 18 August 2010 on the following conditions:
i. that he accepts supervision of an officer of ACT Corrective Services delegated by the Chief Executive or her delegate to supervise him and to obey all reasonable directions of that officer, especially as to drug and alcohol treatment and counselling;
ii. that he reside at an address provided to the ACT Supreme Court;
iii. that he not absent himself from his place of residence between the hours of 8 pm and 6.30 am daily;
iv. that he abstain from the use of illicit drugs and from alcohol;
v. that he submit, as and when required, to breath analysis and urinalysis;
vi. that he report to the officer in charge of City Police Station each day between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm;
vii. that he not contact directly or indirectly, assault, threaten, harass or intimidate Trent Bryant Barden, Brent Peter Smith-Roberts, Michelle Phillips-Freeman, Holly Williams or Andrew Raymond Reeves;
viii. that he not approach or be within 100 metres of Trent Bryant Barden, Brent Peter Smith-Roberts, Michelle Phillips-Freeman, Holly Williams or Andrew Raymond Reeves;
ix. that he not operate a motor vehicle, be in possession of the keys or be in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle.
x. that he not be in a motor vehicle which fails to obey a direction by a police officer to stop;
xi. that he not be within 100 metres of Northbourne Flats, Forbes Street, Turner;
xii. that he commence and maintain employment with Mr Wayne Fleming, and if that employment is not offered or is terminated for any reason, he report within 24 hours to the Registrar of the ACT Supreme Court for reconsideration of bail and bail conditions; and
xiii. that he report to ACT Corrective Services, Eclipse House, Canberra City, on 4 August 2010 to arrange supervision.
67. After announcing Mr Lacey’s bail conditions, I addressed him directly as follows:
I am prepared to give you an opportunity...You will be under, no doubt, great scrutiny from the police, and they will be watching you. Any stepping out of line and you will come back before me. If you breach those bail conditions, unless it is a minor breach for a very good reason, you will be in custody until you are before the Magistrates Court. Do you understand that?
68. I then recommended that Mr Lacey go through the bail conditions with Ms Bolas, I said, “What I have required is a range of conditions, and I suggest you go through those carefully with Ms Bolas so that you understand them...and comply with them.”
I certify that the preceding sixty-eight (68) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Refshauge.
Associate:
Date: 10 August 2010
Counsel for the Prosecution: Mr T Hickey
Solicitor for the Prosecution: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the Defendant: Ms K Bolas
Solicitor for the Defendant: Aboriginal Legal Service
Date of hearing: 23, 30 July and 3 August 2010
Date of judgment: 10 August 2010
ItalyItaly
Comments
Post a Comment