R v Porter [2018] NSWSC 1443

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Porter [2018] NSWSC 1443 Hearing dates: 24 September 2018 Date of orders: 26 September 2018 Decision date: 26 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison J Decision: Bail refused Catchwords: BAIL – release application – where previous application refused by the Court – where change in circumstances – where applicant has obtained a placement for full time residential drug rehabilitation – where unacceptable risk that the applicant will commit a serious offence, endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community, or interfere with witnesses or evidence – bail refused Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 17, 74 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Scott Porter (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Ryan & Payten Criminal Law Specialists (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/169118 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: Scott Porter applies for bail. He is charged with a series of related offences alleged to have been committed between 6 and 7 February 2018. He was arrested on 12 February 2018 and has remained in custody bail refused since then. His matters are next listed for mention or committal at Wyong Local Court on 2 October 2018. 2. Mr Porter has previously applied for bail. That application was dealt with by Lonergan J on 15 May 2018. Her Honour refused that application. Accordingly, the present application faces the threshold test in accordance with s 74 of the Bail Act 2013. 3. The complainant in all of the offences is Mr Porter's former partner. Her account of what is alleged to have occurred is set out in the police facts. It is unnecessary for present purposes to describe that account in full. It is sufficient to observe that she alleges that Mr Porter confronted her holding a hammer when she returned home one evening. An argument ensued. It is alleged that Mr Porter yelled obscenities at the victim and threw a hammer at the car, smashing the driver's side window. She then drove away and organised emergency accommodation elsewhere. 4. The victim returned to the house in the very early hours the following day in order to retrieve some clothes. Mr Porter was not there but later arrived at the premises at about 4am. He is said to have become enraged at the fact that the victim had told him earlier that she would call the police. He began verbally abusing her. He took her phone and started going through it, making comments about a number of her messages to male friends. It is alleged that this conduct had occurred before, consistently with Mr Porter's attempts to control the victim's behaviour. 5. Fearing that an assault was imminent, the victim ran into the toilet and attempted to lock herself inside. Mr Porter allegedly kicked the door off its hinges. He then proceeded to punch, kick and stomp on the victim numerous times all over her body, leaving her bruised. Mr Porter then allegedly demanded that the victim clean up the house. She entered the kitchen and began sweeping as instructed. Mr Porter continued to abuse the victim and only desisted when she begged him to stop. When she attempted to leave the premises she was prevented from doing so. 6. The victim felt trapped and terrified. She formed the view that her only way to escape was to take her own life. She had been considering this for some time and had already prepared a noose with which to hang herself. She climbed onto a chair and placed the noose over her head. At this stage Mr Porter allegedly saw what was happening and began to punch the victim again. The victim was hanging whilst Mr Porter did so. The more she struggled the tighter the noose became. Mr Porter set the victim down but proceeded to lead her around the house by the rope that was still over her head. He allegedly treated her like a dog on a leash. 7. The victim ultimately escaped after Mr Porter instructed her to drive him to the shops. He left the car and when an opportunity arose she ran and sought refuge in a stairwell until her sister came to her aid. The matters were reported to the police. 8. A later incident on 27 February 2018, in which Mr Porter sent a series of messages to the victim is alleged by the Crown to amount to evidence of Mr Porter's disinclination to abide by the terms of an existing apprehended domestic violence order, and illustrate a level of willingness, despite having been arrested and charged, to continue to interfere with, manipulate and intimidate the victim. 9. Mr Porter relies upon the fact that he has obtained a placement for full time residential drug rehabilitation with Wayback Ltd as demonstrating that circumstances have changed since his last application for bail, thus satisfying the requirements of s 74. The Crown accepts that Mr Porter has done so. 10. However, I am not satisfied that the unacceptable risks described in s 17(2)(b), (c) or (d) of the Act can be satisfactorily ameliorated by any available or proposed bail conditions. Although the proposed program provides for full time residential care and accommodation, there is no mechanism by which Mr Porter will be or can be prevented from leaving the facility if he chose to do so. I appreciate that he would, if bail were granted, be at Harris Park in Sydney and that the victim would in all likelihood still be on the Central Coast, but that geographical separation is no more than a relatively short drive away. 11. Lonergan J expressed the opinion that she could have no confidence, having regard to Mr Porter's story, that he would refrain from endangering the victim if released on bail. I agree. Mr Porter's history of offending, which includes stalk and intimidate as well as possess firearms, shows a disregard for the law. I am not satisfied that any available bail conditions would accommodate the unacceptable risk that Mr Porter might continue in some way to interfere with the victim or endanger her safety. 12. In my opinion, bail should be refused.