NSW Director of Public Prosecutions v Scott Allan Orrock [2012] NSWSC 459

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Director of Public Prosecutions v Scott Allan Orrock [2012] NSWSC 459 Hearing dates: 04/05/12 Decision date: 08 May 2012 Before: Garling J Decision: (1) Application for review of the decision of Huber LCM in the Central Local Court on 26 April 2012 to grant bail to Mr Orrock be upheld. (2) The following decision be substituted for that decision, namely that Mr Orrock's application for bail be refused. (3) I revoke Mr Orrock's bail granted on 26 April 2012 and entered on 27 April 2012. (4) I direct, pursuant to s 48(5) of the Bail Act, that a warrant issue committing Mr Orrock to prison. Catchwords: BAIL - Review of Local Court grant of bail - Nature and seriousness of offence - Strength of Crown case - Probability of future appearance - Protection of the community - Bail refused Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1978 Crimes Act 1900 Evidence Act 1995 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 Category: Principal judgment Parties: NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (applicant) Scott Allan Orrock (respondent) Representation: Counsel:J Crespo (NSW DPP) D Provera (applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW DPP) Ays Legal (respondent) File Number(s): 2012/127175 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1On 21 April 2012, Scott Allan Orrock, the respondent, was arrested by police and charged with six offences. 2Four of those offences alleged that the respondent between 3am and 3.03am on 20 April 2012, intimidated each of four police officers at the Newtown Police Station, while each of them was executing their duty. Such an offence constitutes a breach of s 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. 3The fifth offence alleged was one contrary to s 195(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, namely that, between 2.45am and 3.11am on 20 April 2012, Mr Orrock intentionally or recklessly damaged by means of fire, a 2009 Ford Ranger police motor vehicle. 4The sixth offence alleged, which seems to be an alternative to the fifth offence, alleges a breach of s 199(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, namely, threatening to destroy or damage another person's property. 5Each of the offences carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment except that the offence of damaging property by means of fire carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years. 6After his arrest, Mr Orrock was refused bail by the relevant police officer. 7On 26 April 2012, upon his first appearance in court, Mr Orrock applied for, and was granted, conditional bail by Huber LCM sitting in the Central Local Court. 8The bail granted required that Mr Orrock agree to adhere to the following conditions: (a)to be of good behaviour; (b)to report to Marrickville Police Station once daily between 8am and 8pm; (c)to reside at a specified address; (d)to surrender his passport and not apply for any other passport or travel document; (e)not to go within 2 kilometres of any international point of departure; (f)that he enter into an agreement, without security, to forfeit the sum of $10,000 if he failed to comply with the bail undertaking; (g)that one acceptable person deposit the sum of $10,000 in cash, and enter into an agreement to forfeit the amount if Mr Orrock failed to comply with the bail undertaking. 9Having entered into the requisite bail agreement, and all other conditions being satisfied, Mr Orrock was released on bail on 27 April 2012. On that day the Director of Public Prosecutions lodged, with the Supreme Court, an application for a review of the bail determination of the Local Court magistrate. 10The DPP also sought expedition of the hearing of that review. 11The review was heard on Friday 4 May 2012. 12For the reasons which follow, I have decided that the bail granted to Mr Orrock on 26 April 2012, should be revoked, and accordingly, I have decided that the application for review be upheld.