Application for bail by DD - [2022] VSC 176

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0065

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
v
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by DD	Applicant

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 April 2022
DATE OF RULING:	4 April 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Application for bail by DD
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 176

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant charged with trafficking a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and other charges – Relevant prior history – Delay – Mental health treatment available – Strong family support – Substantial surety – Mother undergoing treatment for melanoma – New partner strongly supportive – Exceptional circumstances established – Not an unacceptable risk – Bail granted with strict conditions – Bail Act 1977 – ss 1B, 3AAA, 4A, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Dann QC	Sarah Pratt and Associates
For the Respondent	Ms R Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

On 23 November 2021 the applicant was charged and remanded by the Informant, Senior Constable Daniel Sanderson, with the following:

(a) Charge 1: Traffick a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, that was of a not less than commercial quantity, contrary to s 71AA of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) (‘DPCS Act’) on 15 September 2021;

(b) Charge 2: Traffick a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 71AC of the DPCS Act on 15 September 2021;

(c) Charge 3: Possess a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 73 of the DPCS Act on 15 September 2021;

(d) Charge 4: Possess a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 73 of the DPCS Act on 23 November 2021; and

(e) Charge 5: Fail to comply with a direction to assist, contrary to s 465AAA of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) on 23 November 2021.

The applicant was refused bail by Magistrate Burt in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 21 February 2022. While exceptional circumstances were made out (on the basis of delay, conditions in custody, his mental health issues, stable accommodation and the availability of drug counselling) bail was refused on the basis he posed an unacceptable risk of committing an offence whilst on bail and endangering the safety or welfare of any other person.[1]
[1]It is noted that a risk that the applicant would endanger the safety or welfare of any other person was not raised in this application.

The applicant’s matters are next listed on 11 May 2022 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for Committal Hearing.

In addition to the oral submissions at the hearing I received affidavits (with annexures) from both parties in support and in opposition to bail respectively, and an updated letter from Ferrari Consulting Group setting out the plan for the applicant’s treatment if released on bail.[2] The respondent also filed written submissions, and the applicant provided a brief submission setting out a list…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Application for bail by DD

Details

AGLC: Application for bail by DD [2022] VSC 176
Case: [2022] VSC 176
Decision Date: 4 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, DD, applied for bail in the Supreme Court of Queensland, charged with trafficking a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and several other related offences. DD sought release pending the resolution of the proceedings against them. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the gravity of the charges, DD's criminal history, and concerns about the risk of reoffending and flight.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the seriousness of the offences and the risk of reoffending outweighed the considerations favouring bail. The court had to assess whether DD met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977, taking into account factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offence, the risk of reoffending, the risk of flight, and any other relevant matters.

The court found that, while the charges were serious, there were exceptional circumstances that warranted granting bail. These included DD's prior history of mental health issues for which treatment was available, the delay in resolving the case, strong family support, and the presence of a substantial surety. Additionally, the court noted that DD's mother was undergoing treatment for melanoma and had expressed strong support for her child. Given these factors, the court concluded that DD was not an unacceptable risk to the community and granted bail with strict conditions.

The court ordered that DD be released on bail with strict conditions, including regular check-ins with a mental health professional, a curfew, and strict travel restrictions. DD was also required to provide a substantial surety and to reside at a specified address. The court emphasised that any breach of the bail conditions would result in immediate revocation of bail.

Orders