Cameron v Gornowicz - [2017] VSC 46

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…

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 Cameron v Gornowicz

Details

AGLC: Cameron v Gornowicz [2017] VSC 46
Case: [2017] VSC 46
Decision Date: 10 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Cameron, applied for bail on charges related to drug trafficking and possession, possession of suspected criminal proceeds, and possession of unauthorized explosives and a controlled weapon. The respondent, Gornowicz, opposed the application. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether Cameron had shown sufficient cause why detention was not justified, and whether Cameron, if granted bail, would present an unacceptable risk of reoffending, endangering the public, failing to appear, or interfering with witnesses. The prosecution argued that Cameron's prior criminal history, which included weapons and drugs offences, indicated a propensity for criminal activity, while the defence highlighted that the charges did not include drug trafficking and that the strength of the prosecution case could not be assessed until certain evidence, including transcribed telephone conversations, was available. Cameron also provided an independent explanation for part of the cash found, had a recent strong employment history, and his partner had given birth to their first child while he was in custody.

The court found that Cameron had a recent history of employment and that his partner had given birth to their first child while he was in custody, which were factors in favour of granting bail. The court also noted that Cameron was suitable for placement in the Community-based Intensive Supervision Program (CISP). While acknowledging Cameron's prior criminal history, the court determined that the risk factors did not outweigh the factors in favour of bail. The court granted bail with surety and imposed strict conditions to mitigate the risks.

The court ordered that Cameron be released on bail, subject to a surety of $1,000, and on strict conditions including regular reporting to a bail justice, residence at a specified address, and a curfew. Cameron was also required to refrain from contact with specified individuals and to comply with all terms of the CISP.

Orders