R v Daniel Craft [2007] ACTSC 23 (16 March 2007)

Last Updated: 7 May 2008

R v DANIEL CRAFT [2007] ACTSC 23 (16 March 2007)

CRIMINAL LAW - bail application - numerous applications - serious criminal record - fresh charges - repeat offences involving high speed police pursuits - bail refused.

Bail Act 1992, s 43(2)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 174 of 2006

Judge: Connolly J

Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 16 March 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. SCC 174 of 2006

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN: DANIEL JAMES CRAFT

Applicant

AND: THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judge: Connolly J

Date: 16 March 2007

Place: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for bail be dismissed.

1. This is a further application for bail by Mr Craft. The law of bail in the Australian Capital Territory is governed by the Bail Act 1992 (the Bail Act). That essentially provides that a person may apply for bail before a Magistrate and, if unsuccessful, then have that reviewed in this Court. It does not provide for constant revolving-door bail applications and new or fresh circumstances must be established (s 43(2)).

2. Mr Craft is a young man with an appalling criminal record. He has spent a very considerable period of his years, before becoming an adult, in custody and he has been sentenced as an adult to periods in custody, albeit suspended after a period.

3. He was before the Chief Justice, on a bail application on 14 August 2006. Despite the long and serious criminal record which consistently involves stealing motor vehicles, dangerous driving and driving whilst disqualified, bail was granted. Mr Craft clearly holds the driving laws in contempt, and seems to regard himself as entitled to drive without a licence and does so regularly in other people's motor vehicles.

4. Despite that, the Chief Justice, very properly, given that Mr Craft was then an adult offender with a relatively short record, granted him bail on quite strict conditions. That was on 14 August 2006.

5. On 30 August 2006, NSW police were involved in a pursuit with a stolen motor vehicle. The vehicle was involved in an accident in Queanbeyan. It then headed, at speed, into the ACT. It then proceeded, at speed, through residential areas in the ACT at speeds police indicate, at 90 kilometres an hour, through narrow residential streets in the suburb of Red Hill.

6. During the course of that high speed chase, a citizen driving his/her motor vehicle, lawfully, on a quiet afternoon in a quiet Canberra suburb, was nearly hit by the car. The car then stopped and the two men in the vehicle decamped.

7. They were arrested shortly after following a police sniffer dog chase. One of these men was Mr Craft. It is an extremely strong Crown case, involving highly dangerous activity.

8. Young men often regard stealing a motor vehicle as a lark. They think it is a bit of fun, it is not really an offence, no one gets hurt. It really is violent crime, which has led to death in Canberra. I only have say the name, Clea Rose, to reinforce that. She was a young woman who only a year or so ago was killed by an idiot doing what Mr Craft does, regularly.

9. Mr Craft was arrested in relation to that charge and brought back before the court. He made another bail application.

10. Again, given that he is a relatively young man, I was prepared to grant him bail on even stricter conditions than the Chief Justice had granted based on his attendance at a residential drug rehabilitation centre. I heard all the things I have heard today about him wanting to turn his life around.

11. Mr Craft was granted bail to proceed forthwith to a rehabilitation centre in Wollongong, which was intended to be for several months of residential rehabilitation. Needless to say, he left the rehabilitation centre in Wollongong.

12. On 21 or 22 December 2006, a Commodore was stolen from a Canberra car park. I say a Commodore because a Commodore is a powerful vehicle capable of travelling at high speed.

13. At 2.50 am on Saturday, 23 December 2006, when one can expect that there would be hundreds of people in Canberra out and about as it was the Saturday before Christmas, Mr Craft was in a stolen car travelling at high speed through a Canberra suburb with, on the police evidence, the lights turned off. That no one was killed or maimed by that extremely dangerous and, I say, potentially violent behaviour, is a miracle which we can be thankful for.

14. Again, it seems on the material before me, there is a strong Crown case. The vehicle skidded into the bushes behind the dog and cat motel in Mugga Lane at the back of Red Hill, and police saw a male person running. Shortly after, Mr Craft was found lying face down in a ditch some 70 metres from the vehicle. Now he may have been going on a bushwalk at 3 o'clock in the morning around Red Hill, and that will be a matter for the jury, but it seems to me there is an extremely strong Crown case. Let us just add a little bit to that, again on the police case, Mr Craft was, according to the ambulance officers who attended, "exhibiting signs of severe drug effects". It is a miracle that he did not kill or maim himself or kill or maim a citizen while driving in a stolen vehicle at speed and affected by drugs.

15. I say, as clearly as I can, that Mr Craft has a lot of work to do before his liberty is going to be restored. If I granted him bail today on the basis of his claim that he is going to turn his life around, despite his long criminal history, it would be a victory for hope over sad experience.

16. He has twice been granted bail by this Court and twice he has breached his bail, got into stolen motor vehicles and been involved in high speed police pursuits in the suburbs of Canberra and, on the most recent occasion, while he was affected by drugs at 3 o'clock in the morning, with the lights of the vehicle he was driving turned off. It is a miracle that no one was killed.

17. I refuse bail. I consider that citizens, men and women, boys and girls of this community would be at grave risk if Mr Craft were to be granted liberty. At grave risk because, going about their business, they would have a real chance of him running into them in a stolen car, driving at speed, pursued by police.

18. It seems to me, having made repeated bail applications, I need to make it clear that if Mr Craft now wanted bail, he is going to have to appeal this decision. It is not an option to just keep bouncing back into this Court. The bail applications will keep on being listed before me. He is not going to bounce into another Judge's list, and if he does, he might get the Chief Justice's list. The Chief Justice would look at the papers and see that he granted Mr Craft bail, which he breached by being involved in a high speed car chase. Mr Craft was bailed again by this Court and again he breached his bail by being involved in another high speed car chase.

19. The Bail Act provides for bail but it really gives one chance. It does not give repeated chances on the same facts. The mere fact that Mr Craft could get into a rehabilitation centre is not going to greatly assist his chances of bail, because when he was last put into a rehabilitation centre, he left and was caught driving in a stolen car at high speed through the suburbs of Canberra.

20. The bail application is refused. I direct that a transcript of what I have said today be published as an ex tempore decision to provide clear guidance to Mr Craft and also to strengthen the hand of magistrates who are often faced with this type of bail application.

21. The magistrate who refused Mr Craft bail was, in my view, entirely correct. He was entirely correct to do so because Mr Craft proved a grave risk to the community. He is a young man and if he does not change his ways he is not going to become a middle-aged man, he is going to be dead, or will kill somebody.

I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Connolly.

Associate:

Date: 16 March 2007

Counsel for the applicant: Mr D Cummins

Solicitor for the applicant: Darryl Perkins Solicitors

Counsel for the respondent: Mr A Doig

Solicitor for the respondent: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Date of hearing: 16 March 2007

Date of judgment: 16 March 2007