Lockwood v The Queen
[2012] VSC 566
•21 November 2012
| Do Not Send for Reporting | ||
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No S CR 2012 0140
IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)
and
IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by MARK LOCKWOOD
---
JUDGE: | CURTAIN J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 November 2012 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 21 November 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Lockwood v R | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2012] VSC 566 | |
---
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr D Sheales | Grigor Lawyers |
| For the Respondent | Mr P Moran | Office of Public Prosecutions |
HER HONOUR:
The applicant Mark Lockwood has been charged with the following offences: two charges of trafficking cannabis; possessing cannabis; possession of an unregistered general category handgun; being a non-prohibited person in possession of a registered category handgun; possession of cartridge ammunition; and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime. He applies for bail and, pursuant to s 4(4)(ca) of the Bail Act, must show cause as to why his detention in custody is not justified, he being charged with the offence of trafficking.
The offences arose out of the execution of a warrant at the applicant’s home at 1 Eccles Street, Warrnambool on 30 October 2012. Located at the premises was an altered semi-automatic .22 calibre long-arm, which, due to the alterations, is now a handgun under the Firearms Act, 500 grams of cannabis, a set of digital scales, zip-lock bags, aluminium foil and $715 in cash. The cannabis was located on top of a cabinet. The scales, bags, foil and cash were all located inside the same cabinet. Two mobile phones were also located, one of which is said to contain numerous messages relating to the trafficking of cannabis. Also located in the cabinet were pieces of paper with cash amounts and peoples’ names which the Crown contends relates to money owed for drugs.
The applicant was charged along with his co-offender, his wife. He was refused bail by the Magistrate, his Honour Mr Klestadt on the grounds that he was an unacceptable risk of failing to appear. His co-accused was granted bail.
The applicant has a number of prior convictions in South Australia and Queensland, and they include producing a controlled substance, possessing a controlled substance, false pretences, receiving, possessing a controlled substance, possessing dangerous drugs possession of utensils or pipes. The offences are of some antiquity, the most recent being in December 2009 for drunk and possessing a knife, for which he was fined $400. The applicant has no prior convictions for trafficking, but has a prior conviction for what appears to be failing to answer bail in 1994.
Mr Sheales, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, relied upon a combination of factors which, taken together, he submitted, established that the applicant’s detention is not justified. They are:
(1)the Crown’s attitude to the application;
(2)the delay in the matter coming to trial;
(3)the strength of the Crown case;
(4)the penalties likely to be imposed; and
(5)the personal circumstances of the applicant.
Further, a surety of $10,000 is able to be provided by the applicant’s stepdaughter and it is now proposed that the applicant reside with her at [address].
Mr Moran, who appeared on behalf of the Crown, did not, apart from the strength of the Crown case in respect of the trafficking offences, take issue with any of the matters submitted by Mr Sheales and further expressed the informant’s satisfaction with the provision of the surety and the proposed accommodation, the Crown no longer being of the view that the applicant presents as an unacceptable risk of flight or re-offending.
The matter is to be heard in the Magistrates’ Court at Warrnambool and is listed for further mention on 18 December 2012. Mr Moran has conceded that a seven month delay until hearing is likely and, perhaps more importantly, that it is not likely that upon conviction, Mr Lockwood would receive more than seven months’ imprisonment. Indeed, Mr Moran did not appear to dispute Mr Sheales’ submission that trafficking in cannabis at this level is not likely to attract a sentence of imprisonment, suspended or otherwise. This then renders it a likely prospect that the applicant would spend more time in gaol than any sentence likely to be imposed upon him, which is a relevant consideration and which may be said to effect an injustice.
Leaving aside the strength of the Crown case in respect of the firearms charge, the strength of the trafficking charge may be said to be a strong one, although, as Mr Sheales submitted, it may well not be a serious example of what is nonetheless a serious offence.
The applicant is 43 years old. He and his co-offender have three children aged 17, 12 and 11. The marriage is said to be under some strain at this stage and, accordingly, the applicant proposes to reside with his stepdaughter at her address. It appears that he has some work available to him. The applicant has previously been gainfully employed, running various businesses in the Warrnambool area for the past six years, and those businesses included a pizza franchise and tattoo parlour which, as I understand it, has since been sold. Although the applicant had, prior to his arrest, planned to return to Queensland with his family, in light of the current situation, he does not intend to do so. He has no prior convictions for trafficking and his prior convictions may be said to be relatively modest in respect of which he has mostly been fined and, apart from a minor matter secured at the Emerald Magistrates’ Court in 2009, they are of considerable antiquity as to the relevant prior conviction relating to the breach of bail.
Given all of these matters, and in particular the Crown’s attitude to the application, I am satisfied that the applicant has shown cause why his detention is not justified and, accordingly, it not being contended that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of flight or re-offending, I propose to grant bail, and propose that the said Mark Lockwood be admitted to bail on provision of a surety in the amount of $10,000.00 to attend at the Warrnambool Magistrates Court on 18 December 2012 at 9.30am on the following conditions:
(1)The said Mark Lockwood must reside at [address].
(2)The said Mark Lockwood report daily to the Officer in Charge of the Police Station at ……………..or his nominee between the hours of 6.00am and 9.00pm.
0
0
0