R v Chalmers - [2009] VSC 620

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Revised
AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION

1640 of 2009

THE QUEEN

PAUL CHALMERS

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 December 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Chalmers
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 620

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Conspiracy to traffic – Conspiracy to cultivate – Traffick drug of dependence – Cultivate drug of dependence - Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant grant of bail – Delay prior to trial capable of constituting exceptional circumstances – Parity – Strength of Prosecution case – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms G. Cannon	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr R. Stary	Robert Stary Lawyers
HIS HONOUR:

By application dated and filed 20 November 2009, Paul Graham Chalmers makes application for bail.
He has been charged with a series of offences:
Conspiracy to traffick a drug of dependence (cannabis) between
01/06/09 and 13/10/09
Conspiracy to cultivate a drug of dependence (cannabis) between
01/06/09 and 13/10/09
Traffick drug of dependence (cannabis) between 01/01/05 and
13/10/09
Cultivate a drug of dependence (cannabis) between 01/06/09 and 13/10/09
The applicant, through his solicitor, Mr Stary, submitted that exceptional circumstances could be made out on the following grounds, some of them in their own right and others in combination.
Firstly, delay. These matters cannot go to trial until 2012. As the applicant was arrested in October 2009, it follows that he will be detained for more than two years by the time of his trial. Secondly, he has no prior convictions. Thirdly, he is in a relationship with his partner, who is about to give birth to their child and he would live with her. He has employment available to him.
His mother was granted bail. She, having been charged with identical offences. The issue of parity therefore arises. The accused has available to him, two sureties, each in the sum of $100,000.
The Crown, through Ms Cannon, Crown prosecutor, concedes that in general, the delay in this case will be substantial. In addition, she concedes that delay is, in its own right, capable of amounting to exceptional circumstances in the appropriate case; where it is usually in combination with other circumstances.
It was submitted that a particularly relevant consideration to be taken into account, is the strength of the Crown case. The Crown case may be considered in two major parts. The first is the conspiracy to traffic a large commercial quantity of cannabis.
The allegation is that between June and October of this year, the applicant, his co- accused, Thompson and Marlik and his mother, and probably others, conspired to purchase a property at Kilsyth for the purpose of, among other things, establishing a cannabis production plant.
Based on the intercepted telephone conversations between the applicant and his co- accused, Thompson, it is alleged that the ongoing plan was to harvest eight plants a week, that is about eight…

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 R v Chalmers

Details

AGLC: R v Chalmers [2009] VSC 620
Case: [2009] VSC 620
Decision Date: 18 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Chalmers and another individual, applied for bail in the Supreme Court of Queensland, contesting their detention since arrest, in relation to charges stemming from conspiracy to traffic and cultivate drugs of dependence. The central contention was whether the exceptional circumstances test for bail had been met, considering the delay in trial proceedings and the strength of the prosecution's case.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the exceptional circumstances test under the Bail Act 1980 (Qld), particularly whether the delay prior to the trial could be considered an exceptional circumstance warranting bail. The court also examined the principle of parity and the strength of the prosecution's case against the respondents. The prosecution argued against bail, emphasising the severity of the charges and the substantial evidence against the respondents.

The court determined that the delay in bringing the case to trial did not constitute exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant bail. The principle of parity, comparing the case with others of similar gravity, did not favour the respondents. Furthermore, the strength of the prosecution's evidence, which included intercepted communications and other incriminating materials, underscored the need for the respondents' continued detention. Consequently, the court refused the application for bail. The court's decision was grounded on the weight of the prosecution's evidence and the lack of exceptional circumstances that would warrant the respondents' release on bail.

Orders