Director of Public Prosecutions v Roberts (Ruling No 5)

[2022] VSC 67

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0324

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Crown
v
JASON JOSEPH ROBERTS	Accused

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 December 2021
DATE OF RULING:	22 December 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Roberts (Ruling No 5)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 67

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Third application for bail – Whether new facts and circumstances justifying grant of bail – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Hayward	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Hallowes SC with Mr M McGrath	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

1. In this matter, application has been made on behalf of the accused man, Jason Roberts, for bail pending trial.  I previously heard such application in September, and on 8 September, I ruled that at that point, Mr Roberts had not established the requisite exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail.  In order to permit a reconsideration of the conclusion that I reached on the last occasion, it is necessary that he demonstrate appropriate new facts or circumstances requiring a reconsideration of the decision that I made.

1. On behalf of Mr Roberts, a number of matters have been pointed to, but principally and fundamentally, they concern the arrangements that have been made and will be made for the treatment of his psychological condition, especially during trial.  Some reference has also been made to the ongoing quarantine arrangements and the difficulties and restrictions on both personal and professional visits.

1. As I discussed in the last ruling, it is necessary that the applicant demonstrate the existence of new facts and circumstances which require a reconsideration of the decision which I made.  It does seem at the present that the arrangements, that have been made for his psychological treatment, are in conformity with those which were the subject of Dr Barth’s evidence, to which I referred in my previous ruling.

1. The delay in the putting into place those arrangements is regrettable.  It was a matter which was raised back in September, and it seems that the arrangements were first made for such weekly treatment on 17 December.  That fell through, and Mr Roberts only received the first part of that treatment yesterday.  I am, however, satisfied that those arrangements are in place and will continue up to the time when Mr Roberts’ trial is due to commence on 14 February next.

1. That being so, notwithstanding the delay, regrettable as it was, in the institution of those arrangements, the fact is that no new facts or circumstances have been demonstrated in that respect. 

1. I am concerned that consideration has not been given to the provision of appropriate psychological treatment to Mr Roberts during the trial.  The evidence of Dr Barth has made it quite clear that such treatment will be of particular importance both to ensure that Mr Roberts remains in proper psychological health but also that he be sufficiently fit to be able to attend the trial.

1. The lack of those arrangements is a matter of some concern to me;  however, Ms Hosking did make it clear in her evidence that she anticipated that such arrangements could be made during trial to enable the necessary treatment to be afforded to Mr Roberts during the trial.

1. At this point therefore I am not satisfied that the lack of consideration and organisation of those arrangements is a new fact or circumstance.  As I say, this is a matter that does give rise to concern and ultimately if it were to turn out that such arrangements could not or would not be made, the matter may well require reconsideration.

1. The ongoing situation of the COVID–19 pandemic has perhaps not unexpectedly had the effect that the Corrections authorities are continuing to implement the same regime that was present at the last hearing, that is that prisoners who attend courts and return to prison will be placed in quarantine, which regrettably, while they are in place, will mean that Mr Roberts will be subject to quarantine arrangements for the duration of the trial.

1. I appreciate that that will be particularly oppressive and difficult for him.  It is not a new fact or circumstance but it is, of course, a relevant circumstance if I was required to consider whether exceptional circumstances are made out.  However, giving the matter due consideration at this point and taking into account the evidence of Ms Hosking, that it will be possible to organise the necessary psychological treatment for Mr Roberts during trial, I am not satisfied that new facts or circumstances have been made out justifying a reconsideration of the question of Mr Roberts’ bail.  Accordingly, the application will be refused.

---