Application for Bail - James - [2016] VSC 283

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0054

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail by Luke James

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 May 2016
DATE OF RULING:	24 May 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Application for Bail - James
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 283 First revision 24 May 2016

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Show cause – Applicant charged with offences while on bail – Multiple previous convictions – Addiction to methamphetamine – Unacceptable risk of offending while on bail – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms N Kaddeche	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr J Kibel	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Luke James, was arrested in the house in which he was residing in Ringwood on 22 March 2016. He was charged with a large number of offences, some 97 in total. They included two charges of trafficking a drug of dependence contrary to s 71AC of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, twelve charges of dealing with the proceeds of crime contrary to s 194(4) of the Crimes Act 1958, one charge of handling stolen goods, and a number of charges relating to the possession of weapons contrary to provisions of the Control of Weapons Act 1990. In addition, the applicant was charged with 24 counts of committing an indictable offence while on bail pursuant to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977, and 15 counts of contravening certain conduct conditions contrary to s 30A(1) of the Bail Act.

After his arrest the applicant was remanded overnight to appear at the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court by a bail justice. On the following day, an application for bail on the applicant’s behalf was refused. A further application, based on new facts and circumstances, was refused by the magistrate on 28 April 2016. The applicant now applies to this Court for bail.

As a result of being charged with trafficking methylamphetamine pursuant to s 71AC of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, the applicant is required to show cause why his detention in custody is not justified pursuant to s 4(4)(ca) of the Bail Act. In addition, as a result of being charged with indictable offences that are alleged to have occurred while he was on bail awaiting trial for another indictable offence, the applicant is also required to show cause pursuant to s 4(4)(a) of the Bail Act.

The offences, with which the applicant was charged on 22 March last, arise out of a search that was conducted on that day by police, with the assistance of the Critical Incident Response Team, at premises occupied by the applicant, and three other persons, at Kalinda Road, Ringwood. As a result of the search, the police found a number of items that have given rise to the…

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 - James

Details

AGLC: Application for Bail - James [2016] VSC 283
Case: [2016] VSC 283
Decision Date: 24 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application for bail by an individual named James, who was already on bail for other charges. James faced the refusal of his bail application due to the presence of multiple previous convictions and an ongoing addiction to methamphetamine. The court had to determine whether James would pose an unacceptable risk to the community if released on bail.

The primary legal issue was whether the risk posed by James to the community was such that it would be unacceptable to grant him bail. The court had to consider James's history of offending, his current addiction, and the nature of the charges he was facing while on bail. Given his history and ongoing issues, the court was required to weigh these factors against the presumption in favour of bail under the Bail Act.

The court examined the evidence and found that James's history of offending, coupled with his current addiction, created a significant risk that he would reoffend if released on bail. The court noted that James had been charged with additional offences while already on bail, which demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that made him unsuitable for bail. The court concluded that granting bail would not be appropriate in the circumstances, and thus refused the application.

No final orders are specified in the text, but it is clear that James's bail application was denied based on the unacceptable risk he posed to the community.

Orders