Bail Application - Bunning - [2013] VSC 681

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0195 of 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Mathew James Bunning

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 December 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 December 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bail Application - Bunning
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 681

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of Medicare fraud committed while on bail for indictable offences – Show cause

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Applicant in person
For the Respondent	Inspector Koo

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Mathew James Bunning, has been charged with 146 counts involving frauds committed on Medicare between 6 January 2011 and 4 August 2013. On 18 October he unsuccessfully applied for bail to the Magistrates’ Court at Heidelberg. He now applies to this court for bail.

As 104 of the offences charged against the applicant were alleged to have been committed whilst he was already on bail, he is required under s 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act1977 to show cause why his detention in custody is not justified.

It is necessary to refer in a little detail to the various charges that are outstanding against the applicant.

On 5 June 2012, the applicant was charged with two offences of possessing a drug of dependence pursuant to s 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act1981.

Subsequently, on 9 May 2013, the applicant was charged with a series of offences including four charges of obtaining property by deception, one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception, two charges of making a false document, one charge of negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime, two charges of possession of a drug of dependence, one charge of using a drug of dependence and one charge of stating a false name and address. The applicant was bailed by the police with a condition that he surrender his Australian and Irish passports and he entered an undertaking to appear at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 1 October.

On the same day, 9 May, a number of documents were seized from the applicant’s home at Yallambie, indicating that he was involved in a series of frauds committed on Medicare. He was interviewed in relation to those matters on that day by Medicare investigators, but at that stage no charges in that respect were laid against him.

Six days later, on 15 May, the applicant was charged with two further offences of obtaining property by deception. The amounts of property involved in each charge were respectively $100 and $400. The applicant was granted bail in relation to those additional charges.

On 4 August 2013, the informant, Detective Sergeant Flannery, having received information from Medicare investigators, attended the applicant’s address at Yallambie and arrested him. In the course of the search conducted at his premises, a number of exhibits and other documentation were…

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 Bail Application - Bunning

Details

AGLC: Bail Application - Bunning [2013] VSC 681
Case: [2013] VSC 681
Decision Date: 4 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bunning involved an application for bail by the defendant, who was currently facing charges of Medicare fraud while already on bail for separate indictable offences. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the lower court's decision to deny bail was being contested. The defendant argued that the risk of reoffending was minimal and that the charges related to administrative errors rather than any intention to defraud.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's history of being on bail for indictable offences, coupled with the new charges of Medicare fraud, justified the denial of bail. The court had to consider the principles of bail law, including the balance between the presumption of innocence and the risk of reoffending, as well as the severity of the alleged offences. Additionally, the court examined the defendant's personal circumstances and the impact of imprisonment on them.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the defendant's ongoing involvement with criminal activities, particularly the new charges of Medicare fraud, indicated a substantial risk of reoffending. The court emphasised that the nature of the alleged Medicare fraud, which involved intentional deception, was serious and warranted a cautious approach to granting bail. The court also noted the defendant's previous failure to comply with bail conditions, which further supported the lower court's decision to deny bail. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the defendant remained in custody.

Orders