Re Application for Bail by MO - [2017] VSC 557

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0179

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail by ‘MO’ (a pseudonym)[1]

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant and other parties.

---

JUDGE:	WEINBERG AP
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 September 2017
DATE OF REASONS:	18 September 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by ‘MO’
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 557

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with trafficking a large commercial quantity of heroin and dealing with proceeds of crime – Whether exceptional circumstances demonstrated – Whether applicant poses unacceptable risk of failing to surrender himself into custody – Lengthy and unacceptable delay – Exceptional circumstances not shown as applicant had admitted having trafficked large commercial quantity, and disputed only total quantum alleged and period of offending – Applicant had close ties outside jurisdiction and access to significant assets – Applicant unacceptable risk – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R Van de Wiel QC	Valos Black & Associates
For the Crown	Mr M Gibson with Mr J Manning	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 13 September 2017, I heard an application by MO for bail. At the conclusion of that application, I indicated that bail would be refused. I said that I would provide reasons at a later date. These are those reasons.

The applicant is aged 52. He has been charged with the following offences:

1. The accused at Thomastown and other various places between 30 October 2014, and 17 December 2014 did traffick a drug of dependence namely diacetylmorphine (heroin), in a quantity that is not less than a large commercial quantity applicable to that drug. (Section 71 – Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981).

2. The accused at Wollert on 17 December did deal with property, namely $15,000 cash, knowing that it was the proceeds of crime. (Section 194 – Crimes Act 1958).

The particulars to charge 1 assert that, over the period of some six weeks or so specified in that charge, the applicant was a ‘controller’ of a syndicate that sold a total of approximately three kilograms of heroin, in four transactions, over the relevant period.

The particulars to charge 2 allege that the applicant was in possession of cash with serial numbers previously reported by police prior to the sale of heroin to the syndicate on 19 November 2014.

The applicant is one of six individuals charged in relation to the sale of heroin, between the dates specified. The charges are brought, as between dates offending, under the principles laid down in R v Giretti.[2] Others members of the syndicate are said to have been ‘AA’, ‘KH’, ‘RM’, ‘MBW’, and ‘MD’. There was…

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 MO

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail by MO [2017] VSC 557
Case: [2017] VSC 557
Decision Date: 18 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application for bail by the applicant, MO, who is charged with trafficking a large commercial quantity of heroin and dealing with proceeds of crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the state. The primary issue before the court was whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant the granting of bail to the applicant, given the serious nature of the charges against him. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of failing to surrender himself into custody.

The court considered the seriousness of the charges and the potential penalties, which included lengthy periods of imprisonment. It was noted that the applicant had admitted to trafficking a large commercial quantity of heroin but disputed the total quantum and the period of offending. The court found that the applicant had close ties outside the jurisdiction and access to significant assets, which could facilitate his flight risk. The court also found that there had been an unacceptable delay in the proceedings. Given these factors, the court concluded that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of failing to surrender himself into custody, and exceptional circumstances had not been demonstrated. Consequently, the court refused the applicant's bail application.

The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody until the conclusion of his trial. No further orders were made by the court regarding the applicant's bail application.

Orders