| 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:
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
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’.
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.
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.
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).
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
On 31 January and 1 February 2018, the following additional charges were laid against both applicants:
· Trafficking ketamine
· Possessing ketamine
· Trafficking LSD
· Possessing…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] VSC 66
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.