R v Paterson - [2006] VSC 268

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 PATERSON

---

JUDGE:	GILLARD J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 July 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 July 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bail Application by Michael Paterson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 268	2^nd revision 19 October 2006

---

BAIL – Show cause under s.4(4)(a) Bail Act 1977 – Two-fold enquiry – Burden on applicant to show cause – Burden on Crown to show unacceptable risk – Degree of overlap – Repeat application – General practice rule requiring proof of new circumstances – Applicant unacceptable risk – Failed to show cause – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Atkinson	Office of Public Prosecutions (Victoria)
For the Applicant	The Applicant appeared on his own behalf

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application by Michael Paterson for bail pending the hearing of a trial fixed for August this year.

The applicant has been charged with two categories of offences. The first category concerns events which occurred back in May 2001. He has been charged with one count of burglary and two counts of theft which allegedly occurred on 24 May 2001. The second category of charges relates to events which occurred in November last year. He is charged with one count of making a threat to kill, a count of recklessly threatening serious injury and one count of harassing a witness. These three counts are alleged to have been committed on 29 November 2005. The victim was Constable Shannon Thompson, a member of Victoria Police. The alleged offences occurred after a hearing was completed in the Magistrates’ Court at Geelong involving the applicant’s de facto wife.

The applicant was arrested on 11 January 2006 and has been in custody since that date. A committal in respect to the second category of charges took place in June 2006 at the Geelong Magistrates’ Court, and the applicant was committed for trial in respect to those charges. They are fixed for trial in the County Court sittings at Geelong commencing on 21 August 2006. One can therefore say that the likelihood is that a trial will take place either in the latter part of August or into September. Accordingly, if bail was granted, it would be granted for an extremely short period of time, namely something in the order of six-and-a-half weeks.

The applicant was born on 28 July 1966 and is presently aged 39 years. He has numerous prior convictions, commencing with a Children’s Court appearance on 10 December 1979 when he was aged 13 years. He has been imprisoned not only in a youth training centre, but also in adult prisons on a number of occasions. His first imprisonment was in a youth training centre in June 1983, and since then he has been sentenced to imprisonment on a number of occasions. All told, there are 15 pages recording…

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 Paterson

Details

AGLC: R v Paterson [2006] VSC 268
Case: [2006] VSC 268
Decision Date: 5 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Paterson, the applicant, Paterson, sought bail from the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved the applicant's eligibility for bail and the legal criteria that must be met to satisfy the court. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant could demonstrate a sufficient cause for bail and whether the Crown could prove that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if released on bail.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. First, the court had to consider whether the applicant, Paterson, had demonstrated a cause that warranted the exercise of the court's discretion to grant bail. Second, the court had to assess if the Crown had proven that Paterson's release on bail would result in an unacceptable risk to the community. The overlap between these two issues and the burden of proof in repeat bail applications, as well as the general practice rule requiring the applicant to prove new circumstances, were central to the court's decision.

The court found that Paterson had not demonstrated a sufficient cause for bail, and the Crown had successfully shown that Paterson's release on bail would result in an unacceptable risk to the community. The court emphasised the importance of the applicant bearing the burden of proving cause and the Crown's burden of proving unacceptable risk, particularly in repeat bail applications where new circumstances must be demonstrated. Given the nature of the charges and the risk factors, the court concluded that Paterson's release on bail would not be in the interests of justice. Therefore, the court refused bail.

The court's decision concluded that Paterson was not entitled to bail, and the application was dismissed.

Orders