Chief Justice Andrew Bell defends colleagues over recent controversial bail decisions

Two controversial bail decisions in as many weeks has prompted the chief justice of NSW to take the rare step of issuing a public statement backing his team of judicial officers.

NSW Chief Justice Andrew Bell has spoken out in defence of colleagues involved in two recent controversial bail decisions.

The state’s top judicial officer has spoken out in the wake of public criticism following two recent court decisions which controversially saw an alleged killer and a teen on 17 break and enter charges walk free from prison on bail.

It comes as the NSW Police Association president said the courts can’t have it “both ways” and that the community was safest when allegedly dangerous people are “in custody where they cannot reoffend”.

In a rare public statement, NSW Chief Justice Andrew Bell said bail was not the time to decide if someone was innocent or guilty, that no grant of bail was “risk free” and that it was “both wrong and unfair” to blame a judge if a person given bail went on to commit further offences.

He defended his colleagues, claiming being “in the thick of [criminal cases] every single day” made them more “in touch” than others when it came to the realities faced by victims, accused persons and offenders in criminal courts.

Greall Tighe has been let out of jail on bail despite an alleged spree of crimes including break and enters. Picture: Thomas Lisson

Terekia Singapu, 43, was controversially released on bail earlier this month.

His statement comes on the back of recent reporting by The Daily Telegraph on two decisions made in the NSW Supreme Court which drew widespread criticism among advocates and politicians.

Earlier this month, 18-year-old Greall Tighe was released from custody on conditional bail despite facing a staggering 17 aggravated break and enter charges after an alleged six-day crime spree across Sydney.

Just days later, the Supreme Court came under fire again after it bailed Terekia Singapu, who is alleged to have killed Sydney businessman Paul Griffin in a one-punch attack at the Ettamogah Hotel in Kellyville on Melbourne Cup day last year.

Mr Griffin’s wife Robyn told the Telegraph the family was “gutted” by the decision and felt let down by the government and the judiciary.

Singapu or Tighe are yet to entered pleas the charges in their respective cases.

NSW Supreme Court Chief Justice Andrew Bell has spoken out in defence of recent ‘bail fail’ claims. Picture: Michele Mossop

Police Association president Kevin Morton said day after day its members were arresting people for serious offences committed while on bail.

“We have seen examples of alleged offenders being granted that liberty multiple times and sliding straight back into the revolving door of breaking into homes and terrifying victims, being pursued and arrested and again being granted bail,” he said.

“The legal fraternity can’t have it both ways. The safest place for the community for an alleged dangerous repeat offender is in custody where they cannot reoffend.”

Victims’ advocate Howard Brown said the determining of bail was a complex area of law that in the majority of cases, judges got right.

“‘Bail fails’ are generally exceptional, but nonetheless, such failures jeopardise the confidence that the public has in the justice system,” he said.

In his statement, Chief Justice Bell it was a “fundamental plank” to the justice system that people were presumed innocent and should not be deprived of their liberty unless there was good reason to do so.

He revealed the number of people being held on remand awaiting trial had increased by 20 per cent in the past five years and the cost to taxpayers – about $100,000 per inmate – amounted to $600 million per year.

Paul Griffin, who was killed in a one punch attack allegedly at the hands of Terekia Singapu, and his wife Robyn. Picture: Supplied.

In his statement, Chief Justice Bell spoke largely in support of the current NSW Bail Act, introduced in 2013 and amended in recent times, claiming it struck an important balance between ensuring accused people aren’t held on remand for too long awaiting trial while protecting the community from the potential risk of more crimes being committed.

He acknowledged that from time to time, people on bail went on to commit further offences, but claimed it was “both wrong and unfair” to attribute blame retrospectively to the judge who determined the original bail.

“To do so involves a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the difficult and complex risk assessment which judges are required to make when hearing and determining bail applications,” he said.