Pasqua v The Queen - [2013] VSC 132

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0017 of 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by ROQUE PASQUA

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	7 and 18 March 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 March 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Pasqua v R
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 132

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Drug Offences – Show cause under ss 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(ca) of the Bail Act 1977 – Delay – Possible 18 month pre-trial detention – Approved for Court Integrated Services Program – Family support – Bail granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J. Jassar	Malkoun & Co Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr G. Hughan	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 12 February 2013, Roque Pasqua filed an application in this Court for bail supported by an affidavit sworn by his solicitor Anthony Malkoun.

The applicant has been charged with a large number of offences. In relation to matters which are yet to be dealt with at the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court there are 17 offences, which include driving offences, possessing a drug of dependence, possessing a prohibited weapon, possessing methylamphetamines, dishonestly undertaking retention of stolen goods, dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, possessing methylamphetamine, possessing information to commit or facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, traffick mtheylamphetamine, possess methylamphetamine, use methylamphetamine and deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime. He is also charged amongst those matters with a failure to answer bail.

There are a second set of offences which are pending to be dealt with in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, which include offences of receiving stolen goods, possessing drugs of dependence, driving offences and breach of a suspended sentence.

According to evidence given by the informant, Leading Senior Constable Dalli, it would appear that the applicant was arrested on 13 September 2012. On that day, the police executed a search warrant on a room at the Palms Motel in Footscray which it would appear was arranged by the applicant. In that room, the applicant was with two associates and acknowledged that the drugs inside the room belonged to him. There is some uncertainty about the quantity. On one view it was 26 grams of methylamphetamine but more likely 7 grams. Certainly it was in excess of the traffickable quantity of 3 grams. There were also three mobile phones and an iPad which the police suspect of being stolen, and the sum of $10,350 in cash. The iPad tended to indicate by its contents that the applicant was trafficking in drugs. The other people present were also arrested.

In the course of interview, the accused apparently told police that the crystallised substance was speed which he had for personal use and claimed that he had bought the phones legitimately from a shop. He also claimed the $10,350 was obtained legitimately.…

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 Pasqua v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pasqua v The Queen [2013] VSC 132
Case: [2013] VSC 132
Decision Date: 18 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pasqua applied for bail from a single judge of the County Court of Victoria, seeking release from the pre-trial detention she had already served for 10 months. The applicant, Pasqua, faced charges of drug trafficking and possession, and her case was set for trial in the Supreme Court in approximately 18 months' time. The respondent, the Crown, opposed the application, citing the seriousness of the charges and the length of time Pasqua had already spent in custody. The primary legal issues before the court were whether Pasqua met the criteria for bail under sections 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(ca) of the Bail Act 1977, given the potential for lengthy pre-trial detention, and whether her application could be considered under the Court Integrated Services Program due to family support.

The court considered Pasqua's lengthy pre-trial detention, which already amounted to 10 months, and the prospect of an additional 18 months before her trial. The court also noted Pasqua's approval for the Court Integrated Services Program, which offered family support, and her compliance with conditions that could be imposed. The judge weighed the seriousness of the charges against the potential for harm to Pasqua if she remained in custody for the full period before trial. The court concluded that Pasqua met the criteria for bail under the relevant sections of the Bail Act, considering the substantial pre-trial detention and the support available through the program. The judge determined that the seriousness of the charges did not outweigh the need for Pasqua to be released on bail, taking into account the family support and her compliance with bail conditions.

Pasqua's application for bail was granted, and she was released from custody pending her trial. The court ordered that Pasqua participate in the Court Integrated Services Program and comply with all conditions imposed by the court. The final orders included Pasqua's release on bail with the specified conditions, and the requirement to participate in the program as a condition of her bail.

Orders