Griffiths v DPP

[2007] VSC 268

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1538 of 2007

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by JASON JOHN GRIFFITHS

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 July 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 July 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Griffiths v DPP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 268

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – “Show cause” situation – Possibility of non-custodial sentence – Bail granted subject to conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr I. McIvor	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr B. Kayser	OPP

HIS HONOUR:

1. Jason John Griffiths has been charged with a number of indictable offences, the most serious of which is probably blackmail, but which also include threats to kill and breach of an intervention order.  He also has prior convictions for driving offences.

1. The events out of which these charges arise occurred between October 2006 and May 2007.  The accused has been in custody since early June 2007 awaiting a committal mention date at the Mildura Magistrates' Court early in September of this year.  Mr Kayser, who appeared for the Crown, informed the Court that he will face a committal hearing in February of next year but there is a County Court sitting in Mildura in September and, if the matter can be resolved by then, it could be dealt with as a plea at that time.  If it is to be resolved it would be unfortunate if some prosecution policy against resolving matters before committal got in the way of its being so resolved.  However, it is not for me to say any more about questions as to what charges the accused should or may plead guilty to.

1. The case against the accused is outlined in the statement made by the police informant, Senior Detective Pica of the Mildura Criminal Investigation Unit.  It arises out of a series of interactions between the accused and his former de facto wife, and the accused and one Vanderveen during the period referred to.  Threats, use of a firearm, intimidation and the like are alleged against the accused during the relevant period.  It is alleged he successfully obtained money from Vanderveen as a result of his threatening behaviour and exhibited a .22 rifle in the course of doing so.  It is alleged that the accused has made a number of admissions to police concerning the matters referred to, although he has apparently denied other matters. 

1. Mr McIvor, for the accused, suggested that it is probable the matter will be resolved one way or another.  By that I take him to mean the accused will ultimately plead guilty to some of the offences with which he has been charged or offences laid in lieu of them. 

1. On this application I have had evidence from the accused's mother and his aunt.  In particular, his aunt, who operates a pub at Boggy Creek near Warrnambool, is prepared to accommodate the accused and give him employment as well as accommodating his two sons who currently reside with their maternal relatives at Wentworth in South Western New South Wales, their mother having died some time ago. 

1. The accused, according to his aunt, has no car, no driving licence and she says she knows of no way he could travel if he was on bail.  She is prepared, however, to drive him to Warrnambool to report should he be released on bail with a reporting condition. 

1. The accused is 35 and has no relevant prior convictions.  This alleged offending, or some of it, is said to be related to the ingestion of illicit drugs.  Whilst this Court is not in a position to form any real appreciation of the accused's criminality, provided he is convicted it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he would receive a non‑custodial sentence at any trial he underwent following his committal.  This may not occur, but then it might.  Even if he received a custodial sentence, it is not unlikely he would have served at least as long as such sentence were he to have to await a trial after a committal in February 2008.  A trial may well not occur until late next year or perhaps even in 2009. 

1. Even though the accused is in a “show cause” situation because of the offences with which he is charged, and the police informant has sworn that he is concerned as to the accused interfering with witnesses or committing further offences if he is bailed, I am satisfied the police informant's concerns can be allayed by releasing the accused on bail subject to non‑contact conditions and by placing him under the effective supervision of his aunt by requiring him to reside with her and not to go within 100 kilometres of the Mildura post office other than for the express purpose of attending court or visiting his two sons and, in the latter case, only after advising the police informant of his intention to do so. 

1. I am satisfied that his continued incarceration is not justified in the circumstances and he should be bailed on those conditions together with a reporting condition and the usual conditions concerning avoiding places of international departure and handing over passports or other travel documents. 

[His Honour granted bail subject to conditions].

---