Citation: Miranda v R [2019] NSWDC 960
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 May 2019
Judge(s): P Taylor SC DCJ
Background
The applicant had pleaded guilty to a range of serious drug-related offences, including supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, ongoing supply of a prohibited drug, and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. Four additional offences, including conducting drug premises, appeared on a Form 1 (a document listing related offences to be taken into account at sentencing). The applicant brought a bail application while on remand awaiting sentencing.
At the time of the application, the applicant had been in custody for just over 10 months, with sentencing listed for October 2019. By sentencing, he would have spent more than 15 months on remand. The Crown opposed bail.
Legal Issues
- Whether the applicant could show cause why his continued detention was not justified, given his guilty plea to a show cause offence
- Whether the prospect of the remand period exceeding the eventual non-parole period constituted sufficient cause
- Whether the opportunity to enter residential rehabilitation constituted sufficient cause
Decision
Show cause requirement generally:
Because the applicant had pleaded guilty to supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, he was required to show cause why detention should not continue. The court noted that a guilty plea makes satisfying the show cause requirement more difficult (at [1]).
Issue 1: Remand period exceeding non-parole period:
The applicant argued that his time on remand might exceed his eventual non-parole period. However, sentencing statistics in evidence showed that guilty pleas for this type of offence had consistently resulted in imprisonment, with no non-parole period of less than 18 months imposed since 2008. The court found the applicant was therefore unlikely to receive a non-parole period shorter than his total remand period (at [5]-[6]).
Issue 2: Residential rehabilitation:
The applicant also pointed to a potential opportunity to enter residential rehabilitation. The court found there was no present prospect of a place in a residential rehabilitation facility, and no evidence that rehabilitation would be advanced by bail in the absence of such a placement. By the conclusion of the hearing, neither ground had been strongly pressed nor could be supported on the evidence (at [4], [6]).
Overall conclusion:
Neither basis put forward was sufficient to show cause. The court refused bail (at [6]-[7]).
Orders Made
- Bail applied for, opposed by the Crown, bail refused.
Key Takeaways
- A guilty plea to a show cause offence not only triggers the show cause requirement but also makes it harder to satisfy, as the District Court confirmed in this decision (at [1]).
- Remand period arguments require evidentiary support: where sentencing statistics demonstrate that non-parole periods for the relevant offence category consistently exceed the remand period, this ground will not establish cause (at [5]-[6]).
- Residential rehabilitation as a basis for bail requires evidence of an actual available placement; a mere opportunity or prospect, without a confirmed place, was insufficient to constitute cause in this case (at [4], [6]).
- Refusing bail, the court applied the principles from Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCCA 314 and Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 concerning both the show cause test and the assessment of unacceptable risk (at [2]).
- Substantial progress in rehabilitation while in custody did not, of itself, satisfy the show cause threshold where the proposed bail conditions did not include a residential rehabilitation component (at [4]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Not stated
Cases
- Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCCA 314
- Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284