R v Pratten (No 11) [2012] NSWSC 1674

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 11) [2012] NSWSC 1674 Hearing dates: 12 March 2012,14 March 2012,19-23 March 2012,26-29 March 2012,02 April 2012,04-05 April 2012,11 April 2012,14 - 30 April 2012,01-02 May 2012, 04 May 2012,07 May 2012,09 May 2012-01 June 2012,04 June 2012,06 June 2012,27 July 2012 Decision date: 27 July 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: 1. The Court makes no order as to bail. Catchwords: CRIMINAL - BAIL - Interlocutory proceedings - accused charged with obtaining financial advantage by deception contrary to s 134.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) - adjourned sentence hearing - bail application pursuant to s 32 of the Bail Act 1978 - bail is continued Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1978 (NSW) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Timothy Charles Pratten (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: K. Chapple SC with B. Hatfield (Crown) M. Leighton-Daly (Defendant) File Number(s): 2010/315475

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1. HIS HONOUR: I have two applications before me in relation to bail. The applications for bail relate to the period for an adjourned sentencing hearing. Mr Pratten, having been found guilty by a jury of seven counts of dishonestly obtaining by deception a financial advantage from the Commonwealth, is awaiting sentence. Those sentence proceedings will now occur either on 10 September 2012 or some time to be adjusted in relation to that. 2. Whether I grant bail is a matter that requires consideration of the provisions of s 32 of the Bail Act 1978. I have dealt with these issues in relation to an application by the Crown on an earlier occasion for revocation of bail, that application being based upon a breach of the bail condition to be of good behaviour in that Mr Pratten did and has been charged with contravening a restraining order in relation to the disposal or dealing with property, being a boat. It seemed to me on the last occasion that the provisions of s 32(1)(b) of the Bail Act as it applies to Mr Pratten and the complicated factual scenario that is before the court on sentencing required his liberty to prepare his case appropriately. 3. What has occurred in the meantime is that there has been a change of solicitor, there is an issue about Legal Aid funding, and new solicitors are required to become acquainted with the proceedings and the vast amount of detail. It seems from the position of Mr Pratten that he now is the only person who has continuity in terms of the trial and the sentencing proceeding, and his liberty to prepare the case is probably even more important. 4. In those circumstances, I intend to continue bail. The reasons for the continuation were essentially confined to that aspect. 5. The circumstances of the contravention of the restraining order gave me concern for a greater risk involved in attendance. It is for that reason that I imposed the reporting condition and the condition related to the passport of his daughter, that is the daughter of whom he has custody or that is staying with him. 6. It seems to me from what has fallen in the proceedings today that nothing has changed in that regard. The need to tend to Mr Pratten's farm and his stock is accommodated by the condition that he can report either at Kings Cross or at Raymond Terrace, and I do not vary the conditions of bail, nor do I revoke them. 7. The court makes no order as to bail.