Re application for bail by Lim - [2017] VSC 719

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0233

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail by Michael LIM

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 November 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 November 2017 (ex tempore)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re application for bail by Lim
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 719

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Multiple charges of cultivating cannabis in large commercial quantities – Whether exceptional circumstances justifying grant of bail – Delay caused by applicant dismissing legal representatives multiple times – Whether unacceptable risk – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms L Ristivojevic	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Crown	Mr S Ballek	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

By notice dated 6 October 2017, Michael Lim makes application for bail.

He has been charged with a number of offences involving the cultivation of cannabis at six different premises in relation to the actual growing of crops relating to 1711 plants with an aggregate weight of 476.86 kilograms, which is a large commercial quantity — a large commercial quantity being 250 kilograms or 1000 plants. The case represents a significant example of a large commercial quantity of the cultivation of cannabis.

Because of the operation of s 4(2)(aa)(i) of the Bail Act1977, it is incumbent upon the applicant to show exceptional circumstances as to why he should be admitted to bail.

The applicant had been arrested on 15 July 2015, and on 1 April 2016 he was committed to stand trial on the present charges. It follows that there will have been a significant period between the time of his arrest and the time of trial in January 2018. It has often been said that inordinate delay is capable of itself, or in combination with other factors, to amount to exceptional circumstances.

The delay between the time of the hearing of this application and trial is relatively brief. That is not to say, however, that the earlier periods of delay are not relevant. It does happen in this case that the applicant has had the matter listed for trial on two earlier occasions, 24 October 2016 and 29 May 2017. Those trials did not proceed because he dispensed with the services of his then legal practitioners.

There have been a number of mentions and directions hearings in the County Court relating to the question of representation and to funding for that representation. It does not seem to me that it can be said, when taking into account the actions of the applicant himself (including the use of 14 different firms of solicitors in the proceedings), that the delay can be called inordinate in the way that it has been understood by this Court in relation to exceptional circumstances.

The other matters put on behalf of the applicant are that he is a…

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 Re application for bail by Lim

Details

AGLC: Re application for bail by Lim [2017] VSC 719
Case: [2017] VSC 719
Decision Date: 16 November 2017 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lim applied for bail in relation to multiple charges of cultivating cannabis in large commercial quantities. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue for the court was whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail, particularly in light of the applicant's history of dismissing legal representatives multiple times, which had caused significant delays in the proceedings. The court had to weigh the potential impact of these delays against the risk to the community if bail were granted.

In assessing whether exceptional circumstances existed, the court considered the seriousness of the charges, the potential sentence, and the likelihood of the applicant absconding or interfering with witnesses. The court also emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal process, including the applicant's engagement with legal representation. Given the significant delays caused by the applicant's actions and the potential risk to the community, the court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting bail. The court found that granting bail would not adequately address the risk of unacceptable harm to the community and therefore refused the application.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to protect public safety and ensure the orderly administration of justice. The court held that the risk of the applicant reoffending or failing to appear in court outweighed any potential benefit of granting bail. Consequently, the application for bail was refused, and the applicant remained in custody pending the outcome of the trial.

Orders