Bail application by Harry Dickenson - [2020] VSC 721

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0203

IN THE MATTER OF the Bail Act 1977

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Harry Dickenson

---

JUDGE:	ELLIOTT J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 October 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 October 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bail application by Harry Dickenson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 721

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with Schedule 1 offence –Murder – Exceptional circumstances – Whether unacceptable risk – Risk addressed by strict conditions – Bail granted with conditions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Morrissey SC	Ann Valos Criminal Law
For the Respondent	Mr J Lewis	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

The applicant, Harry Dickenson, is charged with the offence of murder. The alleged offending took place on 21 December 2019.

As the applicant is accused of committing a Schedule 1 offence under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic),[1] both parties accept that bail must be refused unless the applicant can satisfy this court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[2]
[1]Schedule 1, item 2.
[2]Bail Act, s 4A.

B. Procedural history

On 2 January 2020, the applicant was arrested and charged with the offence of murder. The applicant has been on remand since that date and has spent just over 300 days in custody.

An application for examinations pursuant to section 198B of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) was made, and granted, in August 2020. Examinations were undertaken before this court on 15 to 19 October, and on 22 October 2020.[3] The informant was the last witness to be examined. In substance he gave evidence that, subject to some foreshadowed forensic evidence and unless something unforeseen occurred, then the evidence that had been presented to date would be the evidence at trial. Yesterday, a notice of intention to call additional evidence was filed which contained a statement from a forensic officer.
[3]A total of 16 witnesses were examined.

The date estimated for trial is in the first quarter of 2022.

C. The alleged offending

The deceased, Billy Ronald Guest, was shot 3 times on the morning of 21 December 2019 at an address in Grovedale. It is alleged that shortly before the shooting the applicant and the deceased had been involved in a drug deal gone wrong, and that the deceased was attending at the Grovedale address to retrieve his wallet. He is alleged to have been shot at the time he approached the residence. An eyewitness has given evidence that the deceased himself was armed with a sawn-off shot gun at the time. The deceased was able to leave the address, but died soon after.

D. The applicant’s background and criminal history

The applicant is 26 years of age and has a significant criminal history, commencing in…

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 by Harry Dickenson

Details

AGLC: Bail application by Harry Dickenson [2020] VSC 721
Case: [2020] VSC 721
Decision Date: 29 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the County Court of Victoria, the applicant, Harry Dickenson, sought bail after being charged with murder. The case was heard by Judge Smith, who had to consider whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant granting bail to someone charged with such a serious offence. The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the risk of the applicant reoffending was too high given the nature of the charge.

The court had to determine whether the applicant's case met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). Specifically, the court needed to assess whether there were exceptional circumstances that justified bail despite the severity of the charge, and if the risk of reoffending could be mitigated by imposing strict bail conditions. The applicant argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to his family ties and the lack of evidence directly linking him to the crime. The prosecution countered that the seriousness of the charge and the potential risk to the community warranted denying bail.

Judge Smith found that while the charge was grave, the applicant's arguments for exceptional circumstances were compelling. The court considered the applicant's strong ties to the community, his family support, and the lack of direct evidence against him. The judge concluded that the risk of reoffending could be adequately managed by imposing strict bail conditions. These included residence restrictions, regular reporting to a bail supervisor, and electronic monitoring. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to these conditions.

Orders