R v Redenbach - [2012] VSC 646

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0164 of 2012

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)
and
IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by Carl Redenbach	Applicant

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 December 2012
DATE OF RULING:	19 December 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Redenbach
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 646

---

CRIMINAL LAW – bail application – Exceptional circumstances not made out

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Rochford SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr K. Oldis	Valos Black & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

By notice dated 10 December 2012, Carl Redenbach makes application for bail. There are two sets of matters for which bail is necessary. The first set of matters relate to retaining stolen goods, three charges of receiving stolen goods and dealing with the proceeds of crime.

On those charges he was bailed to the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court. He was obliged to report three times a week as a condition of that bail.

On 24 May 2012 the police attended his premises at 23 William Leake Avenue Seabrook, he was not present but an associate Sam Cowley was. On searching a shed at the premises the police recovered various drug paraphernalia and items relating to the making of and possession of false documents.

On 28 May 2012 the applicant failed to answer his bail at the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court and thereafter did not report as per his bail conditions.

On 12 July he was apprehended at his mother’s house in Traralgon. He was charged on that day with offences relating to cannabis, possession of a machine designed to make a false document, two charges relating to receiving stolen goods which related to a driver licence, a passport and a birth certificate.

Subsequently on 22 August 2012 he was charged with other offences relating to altering vehicle licences and possession of relevant equipment. He was also charged with possession of precursor chemicals and effectively maintaining a laboratory.

A receiving stolen goods charge was laid on 3 October 2012. Photographs of the shed were exhibited to the affidavit of Emma Kate Taylor filed in opposition to the bail application. Those photographs were to indicate that the drug related material had not recently been placed in the shed.

At that stage the applicant was in a show cause position it having been alleged that he had committed an offence whilst on bail.

On 13 November 2012 the Office of Public Prosecutions received material which indicated that in the material seized on 24 May 2012 there was a liquid which contained GHB in not less than a commercial quantity and on 13 November 2012 the applicant was charged with that offence. He is, therefore, with respect to that in a position where he can only be admitted to bail if he shows exceptional circumstances.

To complete the relevant picture. He…

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 Redenbach

Details

AGLC: R v Redenbach [2012] VSC 646
Case: [2012] VSC 646
Decision Date: 19 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Redenbach involved a bail application by the accused, Redenbach, before a court in Australia. The dispute arose as Redenbach sought release from custody while awaiting trial on serious criminal charges. The court was tasked with determining whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify the grant of bail under the relevant legislation. Redenbach argued that his release was necessary due to his medical condition and the potential impact of continued detention on his health.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Redenbach had demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting bail. The court had to assess the evidence presented by Redenbach regarding his health condition and the risk of harm if he remained in custody. Additionally, the court needed to consider the potential risk to the community if Redenbach were released on bail, including any risk of reoffending or flight. The balance between these considerations was crucial in determining whether bail was appropriate.

The court found that, while Redenbach's health condition was serious, it did not constitute an exceptional circumstance that would warrant bail. The evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that his health would deteriorate to an irreversible extent if he remained in custody. Furthermore, the court was not satisfied that there were no other reasonable alternatives to detention that could address Redenbach's health needs. The potential risk to the community, including the possibility of reoffending, also weighed against granting bail. As a result, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances had not been made out, and the application for bail was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court in the judgment.

Orders