R v Greenup [2020] NSWSC 1866

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Greenup [2020] NSWSC 1866 Hearing dates: 16 December 2020 Date of orders: 18 December 2020 Decision date: 18 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: Bail Refused Catchwords: BAIL – Murder – Aboriginal offences – special considerations necessary – applicant not shown cause – unacceptable risk – bail refused. Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 16A, 16B, 17, 18 Cases Cited: Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCCA 314 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Stacey Kell Greenup (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Edwards (Applicant) N Angelovski (Respondent)

Solicitors: Ryan & Payten Criminal Law Specialists (Applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/334174 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: Stacey Kelly Greenup applies for bail. She was arrested on 30 June 2020 and charged with murder and bail was refused in the Waverley Local Court on 1 July 2020. As a consequence of the seriousness of the crime with which the applicant is charged, the applicant is required, pursuant to s 16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) to show cause as to why her continued detention is not justified. The applicant is 36 years of age. 2. The circumstances of the offence are said to be that the applicant was the instigator for a violent assault perpetrated on the victim, which assault was physically effected by six other co-offenders, whilst the applicant was nearby. The Crown alleges that the assault was retribution for an alleged sexual assault of the applicant by the victim. Police consider that the allegation of sexual assault is concocted for the purpose of distracting attention from a consensual sexual relationship between the victim and the applicant. 3. The charge of murder is preferred as a consequence of the application of the principles of joint criminal enterprise. The Crown alleges that the applicant was aware that one of the co-accused was carrying a plank of wood to be used as a weapon in the assault. As a consequence, it was within her contemplation that the assault would occasion grievous bodily harm and, as a consequence of the principles of extended joint criminal enterprise, she is liable for the death of the victim. 4. As already stated, the offence of murder, being the most serious offence in the criminal calendar, is categorised as a show cause offence, requiring the applicant to show cause as to why her continued detention is unjustified. The Crown alleges bail concerns in relation to flight or non-appearance; the commission of a further serious offence; danger to the community; and interference with witnesses or evidence. 5. The Crown points out that most of the Crown witnesses are known to the applicant. Further, the applicant's children are witnesses in the proceedings and are said to be critical to establishing the motive for the offence. 6. The Crown alleges that its case is a strong one, which relies on various witnesses who heard the applicant explain that she had been sexually assaulted by the victim and that she was organising for others to attend to assault him. Witnesses also place the applicant at the crime scene at the time of the offence. The Crown also relies upon lies, it says, were told to the police in her ERISP in relation to the foregoing aspects. 7. The applicant has a troubled history involving the use of "ice" on a daily basis; household violence; and prostitution. The applicant was subject to a Conditional Release Order for two offences of stalking/intimidation at the time of this offence and the conduct, said to give rise to the offence, is alleged to have occurred whilst the applicant was subject to that order. 8. The applicant relies upon a number of aspects, including the conditions that are proposed for her bail. Those conditions include a residence said to be well away from the scene of where her criminal offences last occurred.