Applications for bail by Mahoney and Gomide

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0009
S CR 2018 0017

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Martin MAHONEY
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Pedro GOMIDE

---

JUDGE:

Beale J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

9 February 2018

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

19 February 2018

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Applications for bail by Mahoney and Gomide

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2018] VSC 66

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Applications for bail – Co-applicants – Show cause situation – Drug trafficking offences – Applicants alleged to be in possession of illicit drugs while travelling to a music festival together – Bail refused to Mahoney but granted to Gomide.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For Mahoney Mr J Cantor Ellinghaus and Linder
For Gomide Mr T Lavery MG Wardell Barrister & Solicitor
For the Respondent  Mr M Aitken Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

  1. On the 9 February 2018 I heard applications for bail by Martin Joseph Mahoney and Pedro Gomide. I refused Mahoney’s application but granted Gomide bail. I said I would provide written reasons later and I do so now.

Alleged Offending

  1. On 17 January 2018, the applicants were approached by police investigators at a service station in Warrenheip. Mahoney advised investigators that he and Gomide were on their way to the ‘Rainbow Serpent Festival’, and that he was engaged as a contractor for the event to supply tents and equipment through his business ‘Psyclone Tents’.

  1. A search of Gomide located a zip-lock bag containing brown powder, two tablets and $1,369.25 cash. A spot test of the tablets and brown powder indicated that they were both amphetamine.

  1. A search of Mahoney located a zip-lock bag containing white powder, a folded up business card containing white powder, $189.80 cash and what the prosecution alleges is a ‘tick-list’ setting out various names and corresponding amounts of money.

  1. A search of the vehicle, which was registered to Mahoney’s business ‘Psyclone Tents’, located, inter alia, the following:

·     Four envelopes containing zip-lock bags with large quantities of white powder;

·     Two zip-lock bags containing white powder;

·     Two zip-lock bags containing a black crystal-like substance;

·     Two zip-lock bags containing a brown substance (alleged to be ‘hashish’);

·     Two drink bottles containing a liquid substance (alleged to be ‘GHB’);

·     84 grams of cannabis;

·     Two boxes of zip-lock bags;

·     One set of electronic scales;

·     $10,705.00 cash (Australian currency);

·     A pouch containing identification for Gomide and $187.40 cash; and

·     $6,200.00 cash (US currency).

  1. The applicants were arrested and remanded in custody and charged with the following offences:

·     Trafficking cocaine

·     Possessing cocaine

·     Trafficking amphetamine

·     Possessing amphetamine

·     Trafficking MDMA

·     Possessing MDMA

·     Possessing cannabis

·     Possessing hashish

·     Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime

  1. On 31 January and 1 February 2018, the following additional charges were laid against both applicants:

·     Trafficking ketamine

·     Possessing ketamine

·     Trafficking LSD

·     Possessing…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Applications for bail by Mahoney and Gomide and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] VSC 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia against Mahoney and Gomide, the applicants sought bail in the context of drug trafficking charges. The applicants, who had been arrested in possession of illicit substances while en route to a music festival, faced the prospect of their respective bail applications being heard together. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants were suitable candidates for bail, considering the severity of the charges against them and the potential risk they posed to the community. The legal issues at hand included the applicants' likelihood of absconding, the risk of reoffending, and whether bail would adequately ensure their appearance in court. Additionally, the court needed to assess the impact of the applicants' relationship and shared travel plans on their individual bail applications.

The court found that while both applicants faced serious drug trafficking charges, the circumstances surrounding their arrest and their respective backgrounds warranted different outcomes. Mahoney, who had a history of previous convictions, was deemed a flight risk and a danger to the community, leading to the refusal of his bail application. Conversely, Gomide, who had no prior criminal record and was considered less likely to reoffend, was granted bail. The court emphasised the importance of the applicants' individual circumstances in reaching its decision.

The final orders of the court were that Mahoney's application for bail was refused, while Gomide's application was granted, subject to certain conditions designed to ensure his attendance at future court hearings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.