Citation: R v Pratten (No 11) [2012] NSWSC 1674
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 July 2012
Judge(s): Rothman J
Background
The accused had been found guilty by a jury on seven counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception from the Commonwealth, contrary to s 134.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The sentencing hearing had been adjourned and was listed for 10 September 2012, or a date to be adjusted around that time.
Two bail applications came before Rothman J relating to the interim period before sentencing. The Crown had previously sought revocation of bail on the basis that the accused had breached a good behaviour condition by allegedly contravening a restraining order concerning a boat. That earlier revocation application had been refused.
By the time of the current hearing, the accused's legal representation had changed. There were issues with Legal Aid funding, and new solicitors needed time to familiarise themselves with a complex factual record.
Legal Issues
- Whether bail should be continued under s 32 of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) pending an adjourned sentencing hearing
- Whether the circumstances that had arisen since the last bail determination, including the change of legal representation and the earlier breach concern, warranted any variation or revocation of existing bail conditions
Decision
Rothman J continued bail, finding that the accused's liberty to prepare for the sentencing proceedings remained the central consideration under s 32(1)(b) of the Bail Act 1978. The change of solicitors and the Legal Aid funding issues had left the accused as the sole person with continuity across both the trial and the sentencing proceedings, making his ability to assist in preparation particularly important.
The court acknowledged ongoing concern about the earlier breach of the restraining order relating to the disposal of property (a boat). Those concerns had informed the previously imposed conditions, including a reporting condition and a condition relating to the passport of the accused's daughter, who was in his custody or care.
Rothman J was satisfied that nothing had materially changed since those conditions were imposed. The existing reporting condition, which permitted reporting at either Kings Cross or Raymond Terrace to accommodate the accused's need to tend a farm and livestock, adequately addressed the relevant risks. The bail conditions were neither varied nor revoked.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 32(1)(b) of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW), a convicted person awaiting sentence retains an entitlement to have their liberty considered in light of their need to prepare for the sentencing proceedings.
- Where a change of legal representation creates a gap in continuity, the court treated this as a factor reinforcing the importance of the accused's liberty ahead of sentencing.
- A prior breach of a good behaviour bail condition did not automatically result in revocation; the court weighed the seriousness of the breach against the accused's legitimate preparation needs and found the balance favoured continuation.
- Existing bail conditions, including tailored reporting arrangements, can be maintained without variation where the court finds no material change in circumstances since those conditions were first imposed.
- The Supreme Court's reasoning in this interlocutory decision was confined to the specific bail question; it did not address the substantive merits of the offending or the sentencing outcome.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Bail Act 1978 (NSW), s 32, s 32(1)(b)
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 134.1
Cases cited: None cited in the judgment.