Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v CM [2014] NSWSC 1168 Hearing dates: 19 August 2014 Decision date: 19 August 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Button J Decision: (1) The hearing of the applicant's bail application is adjourned until 8 September 2014. (2) The matter is not part-heard before me. (3) The applicant is bail refused in the meantime. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - bail - application for an adjournment - applicant's pending matters will be resolved shortly - applicant 14 years old - exception to general approach to bail application listed for hearing Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: CM (Applicant) Regina Representation: Counsel: Solicitors: Aboriginal Legal Service (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) File Number(s): 2014/233937 Publication restriction: The applicant's name is anonymised. ex tempore Judgment 1The applicant for bail is a juvenile to be referred to as CM; the solicitor for the applicant has sought a short adjournment of the hearing of his bail application. 2He has explained that some of the applicant's pending matters will be resolved shortly, on 26 August 2014. He has submitted that it would be more useful to see, with regard to the bail application, what the situation is generally after that resolution occurs. He also submitted that the application would benefit from further investigations and evidence about what can be proposed, in terms of a bail application succeeding. 3Mr Curran, who appears for the DPP, is open to the suggestion of adjourning and seeing how various pending allegations resolve, but he has noted that the vast majority of the applicant's matters will be resolved by 30 September 2014, and he submitted that the matter should be stood over to a date after that later date. 4I originally expressed to the solicitor for the applicant my deep reluctance about adjourning matters in this situation. Once a matter is listed for hearing in this list, it blocks other prisoners from seeking bail on that day. Generally, I do not consider applicants should be able to adjourn their applications for bail simply to see how their other proceedings work out. Nor do I consider that an adjournment should be granted with regard to matters listed for hearing simply because an application could be improved or better prepared. 5Finally, I also expressed the fact I am very loath to impose upon another judge with extra matters, above and beyond what is already a very long and demanding list. 6Having said that, inquiries confirm that the last issue does not arise because, as I understand it, if an adjournment is granted that would lead to another application not being listed. 7Secondly, the simple fact is that the applicant is an Aboriginal boy of only 14 years of age who has been in custody since 31 July 2014. In particular, I do not think that a bail application that is not fully prepared should be forced on in those circumstances. 8On the other hand, nor do I consider that matter should be stood over for well over a month. 9As an exceptional matter, I am prepared to adjourn this matter until a date shortly after 26 August 2014, on which date some matters at least will have been resolved. 10In order to build in a margin for error with regard to logistical matters and in order to ensure the matter is able to be fully prepared on the next occasion, I will not list the matter in this Court before 8 September 2014. 11I make the following orders: (1)The hearing of the applicant's bail application is adjourned until 8 September 2014. (2)The matter is not part-heard before me. (3)The applicant is bail refused in the meantime. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 22 August 2014