Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Quinn [2015] NSWSC 1326

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Quinn [2015] NSWSC 1326 Hearing dates: 09 September 2015 Decision date: 09 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Bail refused Catchwords: BAIL – detention application – murder – show cause offence – where respondent a quadriplegic requiring significant care – cause shown – unacceptable risk test – where respondent breached bail condition not to abuse, harass, intimidate or assault any person providing him with care – respondent highly abusive to hospital staff – difficulties regarding placement of respondent – whether respondent can be adequately managed in Long Bay hospital – unacceptable risk of respondent endangering safety of hospital staff, other patients and visitors – application granted – bail refused Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW) ss 16A, 16B, 19, 50 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 23A Category: Principal judgment Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Michael James Quinn Representation: Counsel: Mr M Hobart SC (Crown) Ms J Manuell SC (Respondent)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions William O'Brien & Ross Hudson Solicitors File Number(s): 2015/256996

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: This is a bail detention application made by the Crown pursuant to s 50 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). 2. Michael James Quinn ("the respondent"), is charged with the murder of Cherie Vize, at his parents' home at Farmborough Heights, a suburb of the Illawarra region, on 22 July 2013. 3. Pursuant to s 16A and 16B(1)(a) this is a matter in which the respondent needs to show cause why his detention is not justified. The circumstances of this case are highly unusual, and that will become apparent later in these reasons. In short, I am satisfied that cause is shown, but that still requires my consideration of unacceptable risk. If there is an unacceptable risk, pursuant to s 19 I must refuse bail. 4. The Crown contends that there is an unacceptable risk of the respondent endangering the safety of individuals (s 19(2)(c)), and no submission to the contrary has been made. I am of the view that this is well established, as will become clear.