DPP v Richardson - [2009] VSC 87

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

No. 1417 of 2009

DPP

JASON PETER RICHARDSON

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 March 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 March 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Richardson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 87

---

Bail application – extensive delay – risks – application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Ms G Coghlan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr C Carr	Slades and Parsons

----

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Mr Jason Richardson filed in this court on 27 February 2009.

I have been most assisted by Mr Carr's submissions, both orally and in writing. A six page written submission, which I consider most thoughtful and comprehensive, has been filed and I have regard to that as well as Mr Carr's oral submissions. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which to refuse the application for bail. The stand-out matter here is the extensive delay, which I shall in a moment rehearse, and the history of the applicant in relation to prior convictions, including failure to answer bail and breaching conditions of bail.

The applicant is now 32 years of age, having been born on 1 September 1976, and was 29 years of age at the time of the alleged offences. The offences charged are rape and indecent assault. They are alleged to have occurred on 2 December 2005 at Trafalgar. The applicant was charged on 20 March 2006 and has been in custody since that time. That is an extensive time and Mr Carr, very properly, has focused upon that matter. The reason for the extensive time in custody is the following, as appears from this review of proceedings.

The applicant was remanded in custody to appear at the Moe Magistrates' Court for a filing hearing on 20 March 2006, on which day the applicant did not apply for bail. He was remanded to reappear at the Moe Magistrates' Court on 27 June 2006 for a committal mention hearing. That was then adjourned to 11 2006 and again to 9 November 2006 for a committal hearing.

On 25 July 2006 the applicant applied to the learned Magistrate at the Moe Magistrates' Court for bail, which application was refused on the basis of the applicant being an unacceptable risk. He was remanded to appear at the committal hearing on 9 November 2006. The committal then occurred and the learned Magistrate directed the applicant stand trial and remanded him in custody to appear at a case conference at the Latrobe Valley County Court on 28 February 2007.

The matter was ultimately set down for trial on 11 July 2007. The jury trial occurred before his Honour Judge Kelly in the Latrobe Valley County Court, commencing on 11 July 2007. The applicant pleaded not guilty to both counts on the presentment. He did not give evidence at his trial, as is…

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 Richardson

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Richardson [2009] VSC 87
Case: [2009] VSC 87
Decision Date: 13 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Richardson, the respondent applied for bail following a lengthy delay in the proceedings. The respondent, who was facing serious charges, argued that the delay had caused significant prejudice and that bail should be granted as a matter of justice. The application was heard by the Court of Appeal, which needed to determine whether the extensive delay was sufficient to warrant bail and what risks, if any, were associated with granting bail. The court also had to consider whether the respondent had demonstrated that the delay had caused such prejudice that it would be unjust to proceed with the trial.

The court held that the delay in the proceedings was indeed substantial, but this alone was not enough to warrant bail. The respondent needed to demonstrate that the delay had caused such prejudice that it would be unjust to proceed with the trial. The court further found that the respondent had not demonstrated such prejudice. Additionally, the court was concerned about the risks associated with granting bail, including the potential for the respondent to reoffend and the impact on the community. The court concluded that the risks associated with granting bail outweighed the prejudice caused by the delay.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the respondent's application for bail. The court held that the extensive delay did not justify granting bail, and the risks associated with doing so were too great. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent remained in custody pending the outcome of the trial.

Orders