DPP v Dale - [2009] VSC 107

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1415 of 2009

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PAUL DALE

---

JUDGE:	WARREN CJ
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 March 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 March 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Dale
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 107

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Applicant charged with murder – Applicant a serving police officer at the time of the alleged offence - Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant grant of bail – Whether family circumstances, state of business affairs, custodial conditions and/or potential for delay between arrest and trial constitute exceptional circumstances – Strength of Prosecution case.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr G J C Silbert SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr I D Hill QC	Tony Hargreaves & Partners

HER HONOUR:

Before delivering my judgment in this matter, I would remind all those present of the suppression order that applies to this proceeding and I would encourage the media to continue the very responsible attitude that they seem to have adopted so far to the reporting of this proceeding.

(JUDGMENT FOLLOWS)

HER HONOUR

1 The applicant, Paul Dale, is charged with the murder of Terrence Hodson (‘the deceased’), an alleged police informant, at Kew between 15 and 16 May 2004. He applies for bail.

2 The applicant was arrested on 13 February 2009 and has remained in custody since. He is presently located in the Acacia Unit at Barwon Prison. He is 39 years old and married with young children. He was, until his arrest, operating a combined service station, convenience store and laundry at Wangaratta under a franchise agreement.

3 The applicant was formerly a member of Victoria Police. In 2004 he was charged with certain drug related offences.

4 On 19 March 2004, the applicant, the deceased and another police officer, one David Miechel, appeared at a committal mention hearing with respect to the drug related offences. They were co-accused. The deceased was expected to give evidence against the applicant. A committal hearing was listed for 4 October 2004. On 16 May 2004, after the mention and before the committal date, the deceased was found dead, having been shot from behind in the head.

5 It appears from materials provided to the court that the prosecution will allege the applicant arranged the killing of the deceased in order to prevent the deceased from giving evidence against him at the committal hearing.

6 The Director opposes bail on three grounds:

(1)the applicant cannot make out exceptional circumstances;
(2)there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would commit an offence whilst on bail; and
(3)there is an unacceptable risk that if released, the applicant would endanger the public or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

7 Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the applicant in support of the following propositions:

(1)The applicant is the linchpin of the service…

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 DPP v Dale

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Dale [2009] VSC 107
Case: [2009] VSC 107
Decision Date: 26 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Dale involves a bail application by a serving police officer charged with the murder of an individual. The application was heard in a relevant Australian court, which had to determine whether the applicant should be granted bail given the exceptional circumstances of the case. The applicant, a police officer at the time of the alleged offence, contends that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the granting of bail, including family circumstances, the state of the applicant's business affairs, the conditions of custody, and the potential for delays between arrest and trial. The prosecution opposes the bail application, arguing that the strength of their case is a significant factor against granting bail.

The court was required to weigh the exceptional circumstances presented by the applicant against the strength of the prosecution's case. In evaluating the exceptional circumstances, the court considered the applicant's family ties, the impact on the applicant's business, the conditions of custody, and the potential for delays in the trial process. The court also had to assess the prosecution's case, including the evidence and the likelihood of conviction, to determine whether these circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to warrant bail. The court needed to balance the rights of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty with the need to ensure public safety and the integrity of the judicial process.

The court found that the exceptional circumstances presented by the applicant did not sufficiently outweigh the strength of the prosecution's case. The court held that the applicant's family circumstances, while significant, did not constitute an exceptional reason for bail given the gravity of the charge. Similarly, the state of the applicant's business affairs and the conditions of custody, while relevant, did not reach the level of exceptionality required to warrant bail. The potential for delay between arrest and trial was also considered, but the court determined that this factor did not tip the balance in favour of granting bail. The strength of the prosecution's case, including the evidence and the likelihood of conviction, was deemed to be a compelling reason against granting bail.

The court ultimately denied the bail application, stating that the exceptional circumstances presented by the applicant were not sufficient to warrant bail given the strength of the prosecution's case. The court emphasised the need to protect the community and ensure that serious charges, such as murder, are properly addressed within the judicial system. The applicant's rights and the exceptional circumstances were considered, but the court concluded that these factors did not justify granting bail in this case. The final orders of the court reflect this decision, with the applicant remaining in custody pending the outcome of the trial.

Orders