R v O'Hea - [2005] VSC 126

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1447 of 2005

IN THE MATTER OF an application for bail by

FERGUS ANTHONY O’HEA

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 April 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 April 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	IMO bail application O’Hea
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 126

---

APPLPICATION FOR BAIL – Unacceptable risk of interfering with witnesses – Application refused

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In Person
For the Respondent	Ms C. Boult	Solicitor for Public Prosecution

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail pending a committal hearing. The applicant, Fergus O’Hea, was charged on 29 January 2005 with two counts of intimidating a witness, two counts of harassing a witness and one count of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The charges of intimidating and harassing witnesses are alleged to have occurred on 28 January. The conspiracy is alleged to have been entered into between 28 January and 29 January.

Terrence Carrodus and Naomi Brooks are also charged with the same count of conspiracy. In this application Ms Boult appeared for the Crown and the applicant, Mr O’Hea, was unrepresented and made submissions on his own behalf.

It is necessary first for me to summarise briefly the circumstances relating to the charges which have been brought against the applicant. On 18 April 2004, Carrodus was arrested as a result of assaulting one Phillip Williams. As a result of that alleged assault, Williams sustained life-threatening injuries. Apparently he was so badly injured that he is unable to function independently and it has been necessary to have a guardianship order made in respect of him. Carrodus was remanded in custody. His trial was originally listed for 31 January 2005, but is now listed in the sittings commencing 2 May 2005 at the Bairnsdale County Court. However, I have been told that the trial of Carrodus may not proceed on that day. There are 13 civilian witnesses subpoenaed for the trial, eight of whom reside in Moe.

Naomi Brooks is the de facto wife of Carrodus and the applicant is a very close friend of Carrodus. Three of the proposed witnesses in the trial of Carrodus are Peter Wyntjus, Julie Graham, Wyntjus’s de facto wife, and Christopher Styles. The Crown alleges that originally, in December 2004, the applicant approached Wyntjus in Moe.

During that conversation it is alleged that the applicant sought to induce Wyntjus to change the statements he had made to the police concerning the assault by Carrodus on Williams. It is alleged that as a result of the conversation Wyntjus felt frightened and intimidated and fearful about testifying in Carrodus’s trial.

The Crown then alleges that Carrodus, on 22 January 2005, telephoned the applicant from Port Phillip Prison about Wyntjus’s evidence. Subsequently, on 28 January, it is alleged that Carrodus telephoned Brooks from prison and instructed Brooks to engage the applicant to intimidate key prosecution witnesses, including Wyntjus, in…

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 O'Hea

Details

AGLC: R v O'Hea [2005] VSC 126
Case: [2005] VSC 126
Decision Date: 27 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v O'Hea, the defendant sought bail pending his trial for charges related to alleged witness interference. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the risk posed by the defendant to potential witnesses was such that it warranted refusal of bail.

The court considered whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of interfering with witnesses, and if so, whether this constituted a compelling reason to refuse bail. The prosecution argued that the defendant's previous attempts to contact witnesses, despite explicit warnings against it, demonstrated a clear intention to interfere with the judicial process. The defence countered that the defendant had no prior criminal record and had expressed a willingness to comply with bail conditions.

The court held that the defendant's history of disregarding court orders and attempts to contact witnesses evidenced a significant risk of reoffending. This risk was deemed unacceptable, particularly given the seriousness of the charges and the potential impact on the trial's integrity. Consequently, the application for bail was refused. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and protecting potential witnesses from undue influence or intimidation.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders