A driver charged with trying to murderously mow down three police officers had a bail application unopposed by the prosecution only for a judge to intervene due to concerns about the extent of his mother's supervision if granted conditional liberty.
Hawker man Thomas Matthews, 30, is accused of deliberately driving into a detective leading senior constable and two constables near the National Arboretum last July.
Police previously said the officers had pulled over another car at the intersection of Forest Drive and Lady Denman Drive when Matthews, driving a Ford Laser, allegedly veered off the road and headed directly for them.
The accused has pleaded not guilty to three counts each of attempted murder and driving a motor vehicle at police.
Matthews fronted the ACT Supreme Court on Thursday for an application for day bail to attend two medical appointments next month in which the results may form a part of his trial.
The application was based on special or exceptional circumstances.
The court heard that the recent COVID outbreak at the Alexander Maconochie Center impacted attempts to arrange the appointments with ACT Corrective Services, which would not need Matthews to be on bail.
A proposed bail condition agreed by the legal parties was Matthews being released into his mother's custody for the appointments.
However, Acting Justice Stephen Norrish scrutinised the security of such an arrangement.
"The court has to be satisfied there's a mechanism by which the conditions can be enforced," Acting Justice Norrish said to defence lawyer Tom Taylor.
"They're very serious allegations ... I don't know the extent to which his mother can control him.
"I don't know anything about their relationship and what capacity she's got or what willingness your client has to ensure these conditions are complied with for the benefit of both your client and the community.
"I'm a little concerned about rubber stamping without the picture being more complete at the present time."
The judge said the medical appointments were necessary, but he had to consider "a range of issues that go beyond simply the agreement of the parties".
He also questioned whether the parties had exhausted all avenues in trying to get Corrective Services to arrange the appointments.
The matter was stood down briefly for the legal parties to make further inquiries and for Matthews' mother, a senior public servant, to attend court.
'Reluctant to impede upon open justice'
When the proceedings resumed, Mr Taylor withdrew the application, saying escort arrangements for his client's medical appointments had been made with Corrective Services.
The defence lawyer then applied for a non-publication order, under section 111 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991, of Thursday's proceedings.
"There is chance that publication of today's proceedings in the media and some of the comments that were made could impact on the administration of justice," Mr Taylor said.
He said the community may interpret some of the judge's comments, if published, to be that the accused may be uncontrollable, poses danger to the community and that his bail application withdrawal was partly due to those reasons.
However, Acting Justice Norrish said "it's quite clear" the withdrawal was not due to those concerns about Matthews' being supervised by his mother but rather that his medical appointments were now arranged.
He also said his comments "can't possibly be regarded as evidence because the section's [of the Act] concerned with the publication of evidence".
"At the forefront of our system of justice is the fact that courts are opened to the public. I'm reluctant to impede upon what I would call open justice, but I'm mindful of the things you're saying," he said.
The judge, who cited a number of cases related to non-publication orders, said he could not see Matthews' trial occurring before September.
"There'll be a lapse in time between today and any trial proceedings and naturally if asked, the trial judge would direct any potential jury to ignore any media reporting in relation to the matter," he said.
Crown prosecutor David Swan said "what occurred today is not in evidence".
Mr Swan said even if it were, applying the test of the section in the Act would not raise concerns about the administration of justice.
Acting Justice Norrish made a non-publication order only for the contents of an affidavit that supported the now-withdrawn bail application.
Matthews is scheduled to face court again on July 22 for a directions hearing.
