Patterson v Director of Public Prosecutions

[2004] VSC 439

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1426 of 2004

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by MICHAEL PATTERSON

---

JUDGE:	Morris J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 October 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 October 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Patterson v DPP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 439

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Atkinson
For the Applicant	The applicant appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is a further application for bail by Michael Patterson.  He faces five charges arising out of his arrest on 25 March this year, following a raid on his domestic premises that day.  The charges he faces are, in substance, that he possessed documents which contained instructions relating to a drug of dependence, that he possessed drugs of dependence, namely morphine, heroin and amphetamine, and that he trafficked morphine. 

1. As at 25 March the applicant was on bail facing other indictable offences alleged to have been committed on 22 and 27 June 2003.  He was alleged to have burgled a shop on the former occasion, and on the latter occasion, following the execution of a search warrant, he was charged with possession of certain drugs. 

1. The applicant has been in custody since 25 March 2004.  Since that time he has unsuccessfully applied for bail on at least two occasions, one before Coldrey, J. on 25 May 2004 and the other before Ashley, J. on 22 July 2004.  The facts relating to those applications are set out in the reasons for decision on each occasion and by and large I adopt the reasons given, particularly those given by Ashley, J. on 22 July 2004.

1. At the time the matter came before Ashley, J., the applicant had been provided with a hand-up brief pertinent to the charges under consideration and was informed that the committal hearing was scheduled for 16 December 2004.  However, certain evidence was not then available, particularly evidence relating to fingerprint analysis and drug analysis.  Obviously, that evidence was important to assess the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the Crown case, and to provide a degree of certainty that the committal hearing would in fact proceed on 16 December 2004.  In his decision, Ashley, J. observed that the fingerprint and drug analysis results, which were expected then to be available by the end of September 2004, were likely to cast light on the strength or otherwise of the trafficking charge. 

1. Whether or not it has been a result of the present bail application, what has transpired is that in the last few days the fingerprint and drug analysis results have been completed and have been handed to the applicant.  These include a certificate of an analyst in relation to the matters seized during the raid on the applicant's premises, which is to the general effect that a substantial quantity, albeit not a commercial quantity, of morphine and other prohibited substances were identified amongst the matters which were seized.  Further, there is a statement by a member of the Victorian Police identifying fingerprints of the applicant on various items, which would be relevant to the offences. 

1. With the benefit of the additional information that has now been provided, I have formed the same view as Ashley, J., but I can now do so with greater certainty.  Further, and importantly, the delivery of this information now makes the prospect of the committal hearing proceeding on 16 December 2004 more likely, thus reducing the probability of the delay being greater than that anticipated when the matter was before Ashley, J.

1. As Ashley, J. observed, this is a matter which comes under s.4(4)(a) and (ca) of the Bail Act 1977, with the consequence that the statute requires the court to refuse bail unless the accused person shows cause why his detention in custody is not justified.  In order to show cause, it would also be necessary for the accused person to satisfy the court that there was an acceptable risk that the accused person if released on bail would surrender himself into custody in answer to his bail, and not commit an offence whilst on bail.

1. I am not satisfied that the accused person has shown cause in all the circumstances.  Rather, I think that the conclusions reached by Coldrey, J. and Ashley, J. remain intact and that no further information has been produced which would alter the conclusions which were reached at the time those applications were made.  In particular, I must give weight to the following matters:  firstly, the seriousness of the charge;  second, the apparent strength of the Crown case, which is now further demonstrated by the material that has been produced in the last week;  third, the fact that for offences of this type there is a risk that if bail is granted further offences will be committed;  fourth, the poor history of this particular applicant in attending at court when on bail, although I do accept that in relation to more recent times that history seems to have improved;  and fifth, the fact that the delay which has occurred, which I believe is too long, is none the less no different than it was when the matter was before Ashley, J. and Coldrey, J. 

1. The applicant pointed to the fact that one further piece of evidence had not yet been given to him, namely, a statement containing an opinion as to the meaning or implications of various books and articles seized from his premises, which presumably would be used to show either that the applicant was engaged in the trafficking of drugs or, alternatively, was guilty of some other offence in relation to the possession of that information.  In my opinion it would be quite inappropriate if any delay in providing such a statement to the applicant resulted in the adjournment of the committal hearing scheduled for 16 December 2004.  If, however, that committal hearing is adjourned as a result of some application by the informant, then that will obviously enable the applicant to re-apply for bail to this court and base a fresh application on a significant change in circumstances.

1. I refuse the application for bail.