❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding how a dangerous alleged child rapist, Michael Robert Carroll, was granted bail and subsequently absconded. The Attorney General explains the timeline and rationale for granting and renewing bail.
AnsweredQoN 593Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS — MICHAEL ROBERT
CARROLL
593. Mr P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Attorney General:
I refer to the dangerous
alleged child rapist Michael Robert Carroll, who is currently still on the run
from authorities . How did he get bail in the first place?
CARROLL
593. Mr P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Attorney General:
I refer to the dangerous
alleged child rapist Michael Robert Carroll, who is currently still on the run
from authorities . How did he get bail in the first place?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his
question. Mr Carroll was charged with offences relating to events in 2011 and
2014. He was arrested five years
later in 2019 upon complaint. As I understand it, he appeared in the Albany
Magistrates Court , where the police
prosecutor appeared on the complaint. There had been no allegation of offending
in the intervening period and there
is no evidence that the police prosecutor on the day opposed bail. I am
informed that the police had no basis at that time to oppose bail. Mr Carroll
was remanded through to a committal hearing date and subsequently his bail was
renewed on each appearance because he had complied with the set bail
conditions. He was then committed to the District Court to stand trial and
there was a pleas mention date, as I understand, on 30 June 2020, at which he
complied with his requirement by audio link because it was during the COVID-19
period. Counsel appearing for Mr Carroll assured the court that he had been in
some regular contact with him. The court renewed his bail on the same terms and conditions. At that time, a trial date
was fixed for 17 August 2020. There had been no breach of bail conditions in all that time and bail was once again
renewed. Unfortunately, regrettably and distressingly for the victims,
Mr Carroll failed to appear on 17 August. He absconded and this has caused, of
course, not only inconvenience to the court, having to abandon the three-day
trial, but also distress to the victims who had prepared and braced themselves
to give evidence at the trial, which had to be put off. Under the Bail Act, the
initial police prosecutor in the Magistrates Court did not oppose bail. Mr Carroll
was presumed to be innocent and met the requirements of the Bail Act. The
police prosecutor did not choose to oppose bail on each subsequent appearance.
Having responded appropriately to his bail conditions, they were rolled over.
question. Mr Carroll was charged with offences relating to events in 2011 and
2014. He was arrested five years
later in 2019 upon complaint. As I understand it, he appeared in the Albany
Magistrates Court , where the police
prosecutor appeared on the complaint. There had been no allegation of offending
in the intervening period and there
is no evidence that the police prosecutor on the day opposed bail. I am
informed that the police had no basis at that time to oppose bail. Mr Carroll
was remanded through to a committal hearing date and subsequently his bail was
renewed on each appearance because he had complied with the set bail
conditions. He was then committed to the District Court to stand trial and
there was a pleas mention date, as I understand, on 30 June 2020, at which he
complied with his requirement by audio link because it was during the COVID-19
period. Counsel appearing for Mr Carroll assured the court that he had been in
some regular contact with him. The court renewed his bail on the same terms and conditions. At that time, a trial date
was fixed for 17 August 2020. There had been no breach of bail conditions in all that time and bail was once again
renewed. Unfortunately, regrettably and distressingly for the victims,
Mr Carroll failed to appear on 17 August. He absconded and this has caused, of
course, not only inconvenience to the court, having to abandon the three-day
trial, but also distress to the victims who had prepared and braced themselves
to give evidence at the trial, which had to be put off. Under the Bail Act, the
initial police prosecutor in the Magistrates Court did not oppose bail. Mr Carroll
was presumed to be innocent and met the requirements of the Bail Act. The
police prosecutor did not choose to oppose bail on each subsequent appearance.
Having responded appropriately to his bail conditions, they were rolled over.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.