Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hunter [2017] NSWSC 1605 Hearing dates: 22 November 2017 Date of orders: 23 November 2017 Decision date: 23 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison J Decision: Application for bail refused. Catchwords: BAIL – need to show cause why detention not justified – cause not shown – bail refused. Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 Crimes Act 1900 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Terrence Geoffrey Hunter (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Metro Lawyers (Applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/344696 Publication restriction: Nil Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: Terrence Geoffrey Hunter is charged with a large series of dishonesty offences contrary to s 178BB(1), s 192E(1)(a), s 193B(1), s 253(b)(ii) and s 300(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. He is presently in custody where he has been since the date of his arrest on 9 November 2017. His charges are next before the Campbelltown Local Court for mention on 29 November 2017. 2. Mr Hunter applies for bail. In the circumstances that apply to him, he is required to show cause why his continued detention is not justified. Mr Hunter is charged with a serious indictable offence and was on bail at the time he is alleged to have committed such an offence: s 16B(1)(h)(i) of the Bail Act 2013. 3. In support of his need to demonstrate that he has shown cause as required, Mr Hunter contends that a number of factors are relevant. First, he maintains that by reason of the nature and number of the offences with which he is charged, it will not be possible for him adequately to prepare his defence in association with his lawyers unless he is free of the limitations and constraints of the custodial environment. He maintains that his case is complicated and the charges are many. A proper assessment of his response to these charges and preparation for a trial on indictment will not be possible unless he is at liberty. 4. Secondly, Mr Hunter maintains that his trial will necessarily be long. The prospects of obtaining a hearing for a trial with an extended estimate in the near future is said to be low. He anticipates that in those circumstances he will be held on remand for an unacceptably long period. No estimate of that period is presently available. 5. Thirdly, Mr Hunter is currently 64 years of age. He contends that his age is a factor that should be taken into account in the present context. 6. Fourthly, I am advised that Mr Hunter is not in good health. No details of that contention, and no evidence in support of it, have been provided to me. 7. Finally, Mr Hunter made some reference to the strength of the Crown case. He maintained that the case against him could not be described as strong. 8. In my opinion, none of these factors taken alone or in combination is adequate or sufficient to satisfy the show cause requirement. Mr Hunter's present predicament is in no way capable of differentiation from similar cases. There are no factors that set Mr Hunter's case apart from others of a like nature. 9. The strength of the Crown case should be addressed in particular. The material with which I have been provided appears to me to be capable of establishing the charges which Mr Hunter currently faces. While it is no part of my role to determine questions of guilt or innocence, I would assess the Crown case as reasonably, if not very, strong. It depends to a considerable extent upon the creation of documents by Mr Hunter and the unambiguous provision of funds by financial institutions in reliance upon such documents. It is also alleged that Mr Hunter drew down on funds advanced in the name of innocent third parties in circumstances where he had no legal right to do so. The proof of such allegations does not appear to me to be afflicted with any particular difficulties or problems. 10. In my opinion Mr Hunter is unable to demonstrate or to show cause why his continued detention is not justified. His application for bail should be refused. ********** 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: 09 August 2024