Miranda v R [2019] NSWDC 960

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miranda v R [2019] NSWDC 960 Hearing dates: 8 May 2019 Date of orders: 8 May 2019 Decision date: 08 May 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: P Taylor SC DCJ Decision: Bail applied for, opposed by the Crown, bail refused. Catchwords: CRIME — Bail — Show cause Cases Cited: Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCCA 314 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Geoffrey Allan Miranda (applicant) Regina (respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr D Marr (applicant)

Solicitors: National Criminal Lawyers (applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00213610 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1. Geoffrey Allan Miranda makes a bail application. He has pleaded guilty in respect of charges, including the supply of a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs, and so is required to show cause why detention should not be continued. That requirement is made more difficult to satisfy where the applicant has pleaded guilty to the offence. 2. I have considered the applicant's summary of submissions concerning Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1] and Parente v R, [2] which deal with the show cause requirements, and the unacceptable risk factors. 3. In this case, the offences for which Mr Miranda has pleaded guilty include not simply the supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, but also ongoing supply of a prohibited drug and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. The Form 1 lists four more offences, including conducting drug premises. 4. Whilst Mr Miranda appears to have made substantial progress in his rehabilitation while in custody, there was no suggestion on this application that his rehabilitation would be advanced by a period of bail without him being in a form of residential rehabilitation. Rather, the application appeared to have been based on two matters to constitute cause being shown. First, that his period on remand may exceed the non-parole period of his sentence. Secondly, that it was relevant that he had an opportunity to enter residential rehabilitation. However, by the conclusion of the application, neither cause was strongly pressed nor could they be supported on the evidence. 5. The applicant has been in custody for a little over 10 months, and his sentencing date has been listed in October, at which time he will have been remanded for more than 15 months. Statistics in evidence on the application indicate that the vast majority of sentences for this type of offence, involving a plea of guilty, have resulted in a period of imprisonment, and in none of those since 2008 has a non-parole period for less than 18 months been imposed. 6. Thus, Mr Miranda is unlikely to receive a non-parole period of sentence less than the period of remand. And the evidence indicates that there is no present prospect of a place in a residential rehabilitation facility. It follows that cause has not been shown why the applicant should be released from detention. 7. For these reasons, bail is refused.