R v Lever, Peter Benjamin [2008] NSWDC 228

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Lever, Peter Benjamin [2008] NSWDC 228

HEARING DATE(S): 30/07/2008, 29/08/08, 02/09/2008 and 03/09/2008

JUDGMENT DATE: 3 September 2008

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ

DECISION: Application to vary bail refused.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Bail Application - vary bail to permit accused to leave jurisdiction for humanitarian purposes - deliver medical supplies to remote region in Thailand - civil disruption in Thailand - areas effected - accused's rights once bail granted - general liberty subject to prescribed bail conditions - primary purpose of bail - guarantee accused's attendanceat court - tensions resolved in accordance with primary purpose.

LEGISLATION CITED: s.7 and 32 Bail Act 1978

PARTIES: Regina Peter Benjamin Lever

FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/16156

SOLICITORS: CROWN: Mr Walkowiak DEFENCE: Mr Miller

JUDGMENT Application to vary bail conditions. HIS HONOUR: 1. Peter Lever has been charged with falsely and deceitfully impersonating his father and thereby transferring the father's interest in a certificate of title to himself. He is also charged with two counts of dishonestly obtaining loans from the NAB, as I understand it, by using the certificate of title as security. On the Crown case, Mr Lever fraudulently obtained in excess of $680,000. 2. The initial two offences are said to have occurred in about May 2003. The third is said to have occurred some fifteen months later. 3. The first court attendance notice appears to have been received at Waverley Court on 26 August 2006. Other charges appear to have been filed on 30 March 2007. 4. On 19 July 2007, the applicant made application to waive his right to a committal hearing in respect of the three charges he was then facing. He was committed for trial on the present charges on 27 July 2007. 5. The matter was first listed in this court on 10 August 2007. To that point, the applicant had been on bail. His bail conditions included reporting to police. The reporting conditions were deleted on 10 August 2007. 6. The matter was before the court a fortnight later, on 24 August, then on 14 September, then on 28 September 2007. On this date it was set down for trial on 7 April 2008. 7. An indictment was filed on or about 2 October 2007, however, there is no record of the applicant being arraigned on that indictment. 8. On 3 April 2008 a fresh indictment was filed. There, again, is no record of the applicant being arraigned on that indictment. 9. On 7 April 2008 the Crown sought to have the trial dates vacated. The Crown was not ready to proceed. Indeed, it was decidedly unready to proceed. The Chief Judge granted the Crown's application to vacate on an undertaking the Crown pay two day's legal costs at Legal Aid rates. A new trial date of 21 July 2008 was set. The trial was estimated to take ten days. 10. On 21 July the matter was stood over for two days to 23 July. On that date a fresh trial date of 24 November 2008 was set. The file note of 23 July reads: "Vacate T.D. 23/7/08. Def appln caused by Crown. Trial date fixed to 24/11/08." 11. The defence concern was late service of a further ten statements from witnesses or a number of new witnesses and updated statements, compiling ten, (it is difficult for me to tell from the material before me). That service started six days before the trial was listed to commence and continued after the trial date had been reached and passed. 12. At the present time it is intended that the trial proceed on 24 November 2008. 13. A significant feature of this case is that the applicant has been bailed since his arrest on 28 March 2007, a period of seventeen months. Application to vary bail. 14. On 5 December 2007 an application to vary bail was refused. That application would, if I understand the situation correctly, have seen the applicant permitted to travel to Thailand to deliver medical supplies. The medical supplies were destined to be delivered to the Mae Tao Clinic. The Mae Tao Clinic is a clinic providing free healthcare for refugees, migrant workers and others who cross the border from Burma to Thailand. This application was refused. In essence, it has been renewed before me. 15. The application commenced before me on 30 July 2008. It was put over to a date to be fixed because, although the application was partly advanced, there was evidence lacking specificity. Rather than giving a ruling then, adverse to the applicant, it was put over to allow more clear-cut arrangements to be made.