AN INVERELL man facing a raft of historical child sex abuse charges has been refused bail in court.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The 53-year-old cannot be identified for legal reasons but his fresh bid for bail in Inverell Local Court on Thursday was rejected by Magistrate Darryl Pearce, despite detailed and lengthy arguments from the defence.
Defence barrister David Randle maintained that significant “inconsistencies” in the complainants’ reports given in 2012 and 2017 weakened the prosecution’s case, and the man’s history of compliance with previous bail conditions indicated he was not a flight risk.
“The issue of flight risk goes no further than the seriousness of the allegations,” Mr Randle told the court.
Mr Randle proposed that strict bail conditions be imposed to a level a similar to that of “home detention” and that his client report to Moree police as often as the magistrate deemed fit.
RELATED ARTICLES:
The case for bail was underpinned by the likelihood of a lengthy period in custody as he awaits a trial date, estimated by Mr Randle to be around 12 months in duration, before the case would come to trial in Armidale.
He proposed that period of time instead be served on a rural property about an hour’s drive from Inverell where he would be monitored by a friend and his wife who had made a similar arrangement with another man who was serving five years for theft.
No children would be allowed onto the property during the man’s stay, the court heard.
Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) solicitor Luke Boenisch argued against Mr Randle’s position, claiming the Crown’s case was “stronger” than described and that the proposed bail conditions “are not satisfactory”.
The seriousness of the charges triggered a show cause bail hearing. In delivering his judgement, Mr Pearce said he was “not here to determine the guilt of the accused” but decide “whether on balance the defendant has shown that detention is not justified”.
In his reasons, Mr Pearce said he considered the number of complainants involved in the matter, and the relatively short nature of 12 months in custody as opposed to the 25-year sentence the offences carried, if convicted. The case was adjourned to late-November.
