Hewat v The Queen - [2013] VSC 642

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0119 of 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by PETER JOHN HEWAT

---

JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 NOVEMBER 2013
DATE OF RULING:	19 NOVEMBER 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	HEWAT v R
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 642

---

CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – Further offences committed while on bail awaiting trial – Application for further bail – Application to revoke bail – Whether applicant has satisfied the Court that his detention in custody is not justified – Whether an unacceptable risk that the applicant will interfere with witnesses or commit further offences – Bail refused and prior bail revoked – s 4(2)(d) and 4(4) Bail Act 1997 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Tyrrell	Ms E Turnbull, Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr P Rose SC	Mr D Bosso, Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 2 August 2013, the applicant was admitted to bail on his own undertaking with a surety of $500,000 by Beach J. His bail was strictly conditioned. Bail was varied by Croucher J on 26 September 2013, but that variation is not relevant for present purposes.

The charges on which he was admitted to bail relate to two distinct sets of offences. On 28 March 2013 the applicant was arrested and charged with a total of 28 offences. These charges included two attempted aggravated burglaries; intentionally cause injury; stalking; making threats to kill; dishonestly assisting in the retention of goods believing the goods to be stolen; trafficking in a drug of dependence; possessing ammunition without being the holder of a licence or permit issued under the Firearms Act and possession a prohibited weapon without a relevant exemption. These offences are alleged to have occurred between November 2012 and March 2013.

The victim of these offences was Glenda Riegelhuth and the offences allegedly escalated out of circumstances where a dog apparently belonging to the applicant or to his wife wandered on to the victim's property. A set of driving offences was severed from the Riegelhuth offences.

The applicant was remanded in custody when arrested on 28 March 2013; an application for bail was refused on 11 April 2013. On 5 June 2013 the applicant was charged with three further offences; namely aggravated burglary, extortion and assault. These offences are alleged to have occurred on 26 February 2013. The victim of these offences was Wade Short. These offences allegedly escalated out of a civil dispute over the return of a bond following the termination of a commercial tenancy.

On 19 July 2013, the applicant's wife, suffering from bipolar affective disorder was admitted as an inpatient to the Melbourne Clinic.

When seeking bail on 2 August 2013, the applicant was required to show cause why his detention in custody was not justified pursuant to s 4(4) of the Bail…

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 Hewat v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hewat v The Queen [2013] VSC 642
Case: [2013] VSC 642
Decision Date: 19 NOVEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in Hewat v The Queen applied for further bail while awaiting trial on charges of serious criminal offences. The application arose after the applicant had committed additional offences while on bail. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated that his continued detention in custody was not justified and whether there was an unacceptable risk that he would interfere with witnesses or commit further offences.

In addressing these issues, the court considered the seriousness of the original charges, the nature and circumstances of the further offences, and the risk of reoffending. The court also examined the applicant's criminal history and the risk he posed to the community. The applicant argued that he had been unfairly prejudiced by the further offences, which were committed under duress, and that he had taken steps to address his alcohol dependency. However, the court found that the applicant's detention in custody was justified due to the severity of the charges and the risk of reoffending. The court also determined that there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would interfere with witnesses or commit further offences if released on bail.

The court refused the application for further bail and revoked the applicant's prior bail. The decision was based on the seriousness of the charges, the risk of reoffending, and the unacceptable risk of interference with witnesses or further offending. The orders of the court were that the applicant remain in custody and that his prior bail be revoked.

Orders