IN THE SUPREME COURT
DPP (NSW)
- v -
Tara Elizabeth Follett
___________________________________________________________________
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
___________________________________________________________________
Introduction
1. A release Application is being made by the applicant.
2. Thisrelease applicant was refused bail at Dubbo Local Court on 27 May 2020
3. Procedural Background
4. 27 May 2020 - The accused was arrested.
5. 27 May 2019 - A release application for bail was made to Dubbo Local Court. Application was refused.
s 18 factors
1. This application attracts the provisions of the s 18 of the Bail Act. And the show cause provisions don’t apply
The indictment
The applicant has been charged with one sequence of Participate in criminal group contribute to criminal activity as per Section 93(T)(1) Crimes Act 1900.
The crown will have issues in relations to sequences 1
i. On page 2 of the police facts sheet they assert that the accused is responsible for the management of telecommunication of Thompson police provide no detailed explenation as to how they came to this basis.
ii. Police also assert that the accused was responsible for conducting surveillance for the criminal group and managing proceeds of crime again no basis or evidence has been given to support this assertion.
iii. Upon the search of the accused property the police state that instructions for the self destruction of Thompson phone and icloud, icloud accounts were located. Police again do not provide evidence as to why they are of the view that the instructions were firstly from Thompson/the criminal group or why they equated to self destruction/s.
2. It is also worth noting that his Honour, Beech Jones J, on page 2 of his judgment, paid particular attention to the allegation that the “accused blocked the driveway”. His Honour stated the following:
i. That material, in my view, while not necessarily indicating the Crown case is strong or indeed overwhelming, does indicate a Crown case of at least some strength. I accept it is circumstantial but when the fact of the performance of a number of U-turns and then the ultimate observation of blocking the drive way is considered in the context of the delivery the extremely large amount of methamphetamine having occurred, it demonstrates that there is a Crown case of some substance…
Delay
3. In R v Kugor [2015] NSWCCA 14 the Court stated;
[35] A matter of concern to the Court is the delay likely to be experienced by the respondent before these matters are finalised in court. He has already spent 6½ months in custody and if the Crown’s application were granted, on the most optimistic estimate he would spend a further 9 months in custody before this matter could come to trial in the Campbelltown District Court. As was fairly conceded by the Crown, the time in pre-trial custody might well be longer. It is a very serious matter to deprive a citizen of liberty for such a long period of time when he has not been convicted of any offence. This is particularly so when such custody will be served under conditions of “protection” which are more onerous than those experienced by the normal prison population.
4. In this case, the matter will proceed to trial. It is unclear when a trial date will be available. It is not unreasonable to assert that given the pandemic, the trial date is likely to be in 2022.
5. There is going to be significant delays prior to this matter being heard.
Section 18 factors
6. The following section 18 factors are relevant;
i. The applicant has close community ties. Shewas born in Australia. She is an Australian citizen.
ii. The applicants mother Karon Horan and her sister Rachelle Patricia Follette is apersons of excellent repute.
iii. The applicants sister and mother give an undertaking that they will assist the accused in complying with her bail conditions.
iv. The applicants sister and mother give an undertaking that they will report the applicant to the police if she fails to comply with any of her bail conditions.
v. The applicant will have no communication with any of the co accused
vi. The age of the applicant is a significant consideration. She was 35years of age at the time of the offence.
vii. The applicant also has no history of non-compliance with any bail conditions or failures to appear.
viii. The applicant cannot be described as someone who has committed serious offences whilst on bail.
ix. The applicant does not possess a passport and he would comply with any condition that he is not to apply for any travel documents.
x. The applicant is prepared to be the subject of a condition that confines her to what is often referred to as ‘house arrest’. The applicant would be residing with hermother, father.
xi. The applicant and her family are willing to comply with an enforcement condition.
xii. The applicant will be providing $5000 cash assurity.
7. In all the circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the relevant factors, when combined, show cause why detention is not justified, and bail should be granted on strict conditions.
Javid Faiz
Solicitor
Sydney Criminal Law Specialists
2/247 Church Street Parramatta NSW 2150
https://www.sydneycriminallawspecialists.com.au/
Comments