Cameron v Gornowicz
[2017] VSC 46
•10 February 2017
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2017 0008
IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by Robert Cameron
Between:
| ROBERT CAMERON | Applicant |
| and | |
| SENIOR CONSTABLE ADAM GORNOWICZ | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Croucher J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 10 February 2017 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 10 February 2017 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Cameron v Gornowicz | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VSC 46 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of trafficking and possessing a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine), dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime ($9,555 in cash), possession of unauthorized explosives (fireworks) and possession of controlled weapon (baton) – Applicant allegedly sold 91 grams of drug over three-week period – Whether applicant has shown cause why detention not justified – Whether applicant, if bailed, presents an unacceptable risk of offending, endangering public, failing to appear and interfering with witnesses – Prior criminal history for weapons and drugs offences, but not trafficking – Strength of prosecution case unable adequately to be assessed because telephone conversations not yet transcribed – Independent explanation for part of cash found – Delay of eight months until hearing – Applicant has recent strong employment history – Partner gave birth to first child while applicant in custody – Applicant suitable for CISP placement – Bail granted, with surety and on strict conditions.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr S. Tovey | Markotich Lawyers |
| For the Respondent | Mr G. Carr | Monica Vrymet, Legal Practice Group, Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
Overview
Robert Cameron applies for bail.
On 29 December 2016, he was arrested and charged with the following offences:
a) trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine;[1]
b) possessing a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine;[2]
c) dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, namely $9,555 in cash;[3]
d) storing unauthorized explosives, namely fireworks;[4] and
e) possessing a controlled weapon, namely a long baton.[5]
[1] Contrary to s 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
[2] Contrary to s 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
[3] Contrary to s 195 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[4] Contrary to s 54(5) of the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 (Vic).
[5] Contrary to s 6(1) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic).
He has remained in custody since that time, having been refused bail by a magistrate on 18 January 2017.
The charges are is listed for a two-day contested summary hearing in the Magistrates’ Court at Broadmeadows on 17 August 2017.
For reasons that follow,[6] I propose to grant bail, albeit on strict conditions.
[6] I delivered detailed ex tempore reasons when granting bail. At that time, I indicated I would publish revised reasons at a later date. These are those reasons.
Summary of allegations
I turn first to a summary of the alleged offending.
The trafficking charge is based on telephone intercept material showing, it is said, several sales by Mr Cameron of drugs over a three-week period from 9 to 29 December 2016, principally to his co-accused Ebony Crump. It is alleged that the transactions amounted to about 91 grams of methylamphetamine in total, which, given the price at which Ms Crump was thought to be on-selling, would be valued in the order of $27,000.
The possession charge concerns one gram of the drug found at Mr Cameron’s premises on the day of his arrest.
The proceeds of crime charge concerns two amounts of cash totalling $9,555 found at the same premises.
The other two charges concern the discovery at the same premises of fireworks and a long baton.
Ms Crump and others have also been charged with offences arising out of the same investigation. More charges may follow against others.
Evidence and submissions
In order to be granted bail, Mr Cameron must show cause why his detention in custody is not justified, because of the charge of trafficking.[7]
[7] See s 4(4)(ca) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
Mr Carr, who appears for the informant, S/C Gornowicz, submits that bail should be refused, principally on the basis that Mr Cameron presents an unacceptable risk of offending if granted bail, but also on the bases that he presents an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of the public through trafficking drugs and possessing weapons and an unacceptable risk of interfering with witnesses – particularly his co-accused or those who have not yet been charged.[8]
[8] See s 4(2)(d)(i) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
Mr Tovey, who appears for Mr Cameron, submits that a combination of factors demonstrate that cause has been shown and that his client does not present unacceptable risks of the kinds alleged.
At 27, Mr Cameron has an extensive criminal history for possessing drugs, although no prior convictions for trafficking. He also has a history of possessing weapons of various kinds and an assault-related matter. He has been gaoled in the past for short periods of time and has been placed on community correction orders (“CCOs”), some of which he has breached. He has also failed to appear at court on one occasion. Most recently, over eighteen months ago, he served a sentence of seven months’ imprisonment on charges of assault, breaching a family violence safety notice, resisting an emergency services worker on duty and possessing a firearm as a prohibited person. These are among the matters Mr Carr relied on in resisting the application.
On the other hand, Mr Cameron was not under any court order at the time of the present alleged offences and was not on any bail. Further, he was working in a solid job and was in a steady relationship.
Mr Tovey called viva voce evidence from Mr Cameron’s mother, Kerrie Cameron. Mrs Cameron has her own construction business in Melbourne and a vending machine business in Queensland. While she has supported her son in court on many occasions over the last several years, Mrs Cameron has never given evidence for him nor acted as a surety. On this occasion, she is prepared to put up $50,000 against her home as surety. She said that, since his seven-month gaol sentence, her son had changed his ways, knuckled down to a solid job and formed a solid relationship with his partner, and was looking forward to becoming a father. Mrs Cameron said that her son has admitted to her that he relapsed into drug use again. She thinks the relapse may have been caused by the death of her father in September 2016, as her son took that hard, since he was close to his grandfather. Having had contact with him during the present incarceration and comparing his attitude with earlier occasions, she is confident that he is determined to make amends, get back to his job, hold and help look after his newborn child (who was born during the period of this remand), and keep himself on the straight and narrow. Mrs Cameron also made it clear that, if her son were granted bail but breached his conditions, not only would she talk to him but she would report him to the police, as she has done in the past. As I indicated in the course of submissions, I accept Mrs Cameron’s evidence.
I also received evidence, via a letter, from Mr Cameron’s employer, Andrew Robinson. Mr Robinson runs a concreting business. He has employed Mr Cameron since November 2015, and had him working daily in the three months leading up to his arrest on 29 December 2016. Mr Robinson is impressed with Mr Cameron’s work and, frankly, needs him to come back to work. Despite the nature of the allegations and his prior convictions, of which he is aware, Mr Robinson is still willing to offer Mr Cameron regular employment if he is granted bail. The informant has spoken to Mr Robinson, and accepts what he has told the Court. So do I.
Mr Cameron has also been assessed as suitable to engage in the Court Integrated Services Programme (“CISP”). Mr Tovey submitted that a condition of bail could be framed to compel Mr Cameron, upon his release, to attend immediately at CISP and thereafter undertake any supervision offered, accept any referral made and follow any lawful direction given by that organization.
Mr Carr submitted that, despite the evidence of Mrs Cameron, the availability of employment with Mr Robinson and the offer of family and other support, including CISP, there was still an unacceptable risk that Mr Cameron would offend if bailed, particularly given similar supports (or most of them) were in place earlier and given his criminal history.
Conclusions
Having considered the evidence and submissions before me, I am satisfied that Mr Cameron has shown cause why his further detention in custody is not justified and, further, I am not satisfied that he presents an unacceptable risk of any of the behaviours alleged.
In summary, the following matters, in combination, demonstrate that cause has been shown:
First, Mr Tovey submitted that there is at present uncertainty about some aspects of the prosecution case, particularly on the trafficking charge. The recordings of the telephone calls have not yet been transcribed. Thus, it is difficult to assess the strength of the informant’s interpretations of those calls. I accept that submission. Further, Mrs Cameron has provided a statutory declaration to the informant, and given evidence before me, explaining that she gave $5,000 in cash to her son and his partner to help with the impending birth of their child. I accept that evidence.
Secondly, as I have said, Mr Cameron has been assessed as suitable for CISP. Attendance at such a programme should give him some guidance and assistance in remaining abstinent from use of illicit drugs.
Thirdly, he has a good job to go to – the same job he was doing before his arrest. His employer is very supportive of him.
Fourthly, his mother is prepared to be a surety in the amount of $50,000. I accept that not only would forfeiture of such an amount impose a significant financial burden on Mrs Cameron but also that Mr Cameron is aware of that fact, both of which provide strong motives to ensure compliance with bail.
Fifthly, there will be a delay of at least eight months between arrest and a hearing in the Magistrates’ Court, at which Mr Cameron intends to plead not guilty. While it is difficult to forecast what sentence might be imposed if he were found guilty, I accept Mr Tovey’s submission that there is some risk that, if a combined CCO and gaol sentence were imposed (which, given his rehabilitation in the last twelve months, is a reasonable prospect), the custodial component of such a sentence might well be less than the eight or more months he will have served by that time, if not granted bail.
Sixthly, having spent about five weeks in custody, Mr Cameron is likely to have detoxified. He will also have had a significant jolt.
Seventhly, a related point is that this period of incarceration must have been all the more salutary in circumstances where he missed the birth of his first and only child.
Eighthly, he has stable accommodation and family support through his partner, his mother and his father. Mrs Cameron explained in her evidence that she intends to live with her son, his partner and their new baby to assist them over the next several months. I accept that evidence.
Ninthly, Mr Cameron has strong ties to the jurisdiction.
Those same matters, when combined with the strict bail conditions discussed with counsel and which I intend to impose, leave me in a position where I am not satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk of his offending, if bailed. Further, I can see no realistic basis for finding that there is an unacceptable that he will endanger the public or interfere with witnesses. That said, as discussed with counsel, I consider that a condition that prohibits Mr Cameron from contacting his co-accused and certain others offsets any such risk adequately.
Accordingly, I shall admit Mr Cameron to bail on the following conditions:
1) There is to be a surety in the amount of $50,000.
2) Mr Cameron is to reside at 5 Yale Court in Sunbury in the State of Victoria (“his residence”).
3) He is not to leave or be absent from his residence between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. (“the curfew hours”).
4) He is to present himself to the front door of his residence when requested by police during the curfew hours.
5) Upon his release from custody, he is to attend immediately at the Court Integrated Services Program (“CISP”) and thereafter undertake any supervision offered, accept any referral made and follow any lawful direction given by CISP.
6) He is not to contact any prosecution witnesses, other than the informant, or any co-accused, including Ebony Crump, David Carr, Luke Rainer, Tyler Spooner and Warren Beauchamp.
7) He is to report to the officer in charge (or his or her nominee) of the Sunbury Police Station each Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
8) He is not to attend any points of international departure.
9) He is not to leave the State of Victoria.
10) He is to abstain from possessing or using any drug of dependence.
11) He is to surrender any passports or travel documents in his possession to the informant within 24 hours of being granted bail and is not to apply for any other such documents.
12) He is to appear at the Magistrates’ Court at Broadmeadows on 17 August 2017 and thereafter as directed by that court.
0
0