Citation: R v BG [2015] NSWSC 2098
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 30 June 2015
Judge(s): Beech-Jones J
Background
The applicant, a 14-year-old boy with no prior criminal history, faced four charges before the Bidura Children's Court. The charges related to robbery and stealing from the person, some involving weapons and some committed in company with other youths. The alleged offending included robbing taxi drivers using violence, a street mugging, and a robbery targeting young children.
The applicant had been granted bail on the first two sets of charges but was arrested in April 2015 after being implicated in the third and fourth offences. Those later offences constituted a serious breach of his existing bail conditions.
By the time of the bail application, the applicant had spent approximately two and a half months in custody. He had strong family ties in the Daceyville area and support from the local Indigenous community.
Legal Issues
- Whether the risk of the applicant failing to appear at court was unacceptable
- Whether the risk of the applicant committing further serious offences posed an unacceptable danger to the community
- Whether bail should be granted to a 14-year-old who had previously breached bail, having now served a period in custody
Decision
Beech-Jones J granted bail, finding that neither form of relevant risk rose to the level of unacceptable. On the question of non-appearance, his Honour noted the applicant's strong family connections and support from the local Indigenous community, concluding that those ties would combine to secure his attendance at court.
On the more substantial question of community risk, his Honour acknowledged the serious nature of the alleged offending and the genuine danger the applicant could pose to taxi drivers, members of the public, and young people. However, his Honour considered that appropriate bail conditions could mitigate that risk to an acceptable level.
His Honour also gave weight to the fact that the applicant had spent two and a half months in custody before this application. The judgment reflects a view that a young person who has served that period away from his family is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when assessing whether further offending is likely. Detaining a 14-year-old for any period was described as an extremely serious matter.
The court also varied the bail conditions on the first and second sets of charges to ensure consistency across all four matters, updating the applicant's approved residential address.
Orders Made
- Bail granted in relation to charges listed on H57844459 and H57783750, subject to conditions on the court file
- Bail varied in relation to charges listed on H57060311 and H57299547 to update the applicant's approved residential address
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed that detaining a 14-year-old for any period is an extremely serious matter, and that a young person who has served significant pre-sentence custody is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in assessing future offending risk.
- A prior breach of bail did not automatically render risk unacceptable; the court assessed each form of risk, including non-appearance and danger to the community, separately and on the specific facts.
- Strong family ties and community support were treated as relevant factors in assessing the risk of non-appearance, even where the charges were serious.
- Bail conditions were identified as a mechanism capable of mitigating community risk to an acceptable level, even where the alleged offences involved violence.
- Where bail is granted across multiple charge matters with pre-existing conditions, the court will vary existing bail terms to ensure consistency, particularly in relation to the applicant's approved place of residence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation: Not cited in the judgment text.
Cases: No cases were cited in the judgment text.
Note: This was an ex tempore (on-the-spot, unwritten) judgment delivered orally, which accounts for the absence of formal citations to legislation and authority.