Re Application for Bail by Peter John Hewat - [2014] VSC 240

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 00061

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail by PETER JOHN HEWAT

---

JUDGE:	RUSH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 May 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 May 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by Peter John Hewat
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 240

---

CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – Application for bail – New facts and circumstances – Significant delay to trial – Whether applicant has shown cause as to why his detention was not justified – Whether the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of further offending by way of threatening witnesses - Whether the risk of the applicant re-offending is lessened in circumstances where the applicant on bail is subject to two suspended sentences – Bail granted subject to conditions – Bail Act 1977 s 4(4)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S. Tyrrell	Ms E. Turnbull, Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms D. Manova	Mr D. Bosso, Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Peter John Hewat, is making his second application for bail. Dixon J refused bail on 19 November 2013. His Honour determined the applicant had not shown cause as to why his detention was not justified. The principal grounds for the refusal of bail were that there was a significant risk the applicant would commit further offences, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

I briefly refer to the relevant history. On 2 August 2013, Beach J granted the applicant bail on his own undertaking with a surety of $500,000. The charges upon which the applicant was admitted to bail related to two separate sets of offences:

(a)on 28 March 2013, the applicant was arrested and charged with numerous offences alleged to have occurred between November 2012 and February 2013, including burglary, intentionally cause injury, making threats to kill, retention of goods believed to be stolen, trafficking a drug of dependence, and possession of a prohibited weapon (“the Riegelhuth matters”);
(b)on 5 June 2013, the applicant was charged with further offences alleged to have occurred on 26 February 2013, including aggravated burglary, extortion and assault (“the Short matters”).

On 10 October 2013, and whilst on bail, the applicant was charged with 17 further offences, including theft of a Kenworth heavy haulage tow truck, retaining stolen goods (car parts), possessing a prohibited weapon, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime (i.e. $47,000 cash), possessing stamps for restamping engine numbers, and threatening to inflict serious injury against the informant in the Riegelhuth and Short matters, Detective Senior Constable Measham. Detective Senior Constable Kahlon is the informant in the charges of 10 October 2013 (“the Kahlon matters”), which contain both indictable and summary charges.[1]
[1]The indictable offences are being tried summarily.

Since the refusal of bail by Dixon J, the applicant has pleaded guilty and been sentenced 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 Re Application for Bail by Peter John Hewat

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail by Peter John Hewat [2014] VSC 240
Case: [2014] VSC 240
Decision Date: 22 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application for bail by Peter John Hewat, who was seeking to be released on bail pending his trial for multiple charges, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and threatening to kill. The matter was heard by the court, which had to determine whether the applicant had shown cause for the delay in his trial and whether he posed an unacceptable risk of further offending by threatening witnesses. Additionally, the court considered whether the risk of re-offending was mitigated by the fact that the applicant was already subject to two suspended sentences.

The court examined the legal principles governing bail applications under the Bail Act 1977, particularly section 4(4), which requires consideration of whether the applicant has shown cause for the delay and whether their detention was justified. The court also assessed whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of further offending, including the threat to witnesses, and whether this risk was lessened by the applicant's existing suspended sentences. The court considered the evidence presented regarding the applicant's background, the nature of the charges, and the potential impact of his release on the community and the administration of justice.

After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the applicant had shown sufficient cause for the delay in his trial and that his detention was not justified. The court found that the risk of further offending, particularly threatening witnesses, was mitigated by the applicant's existing suspended sentences and the conditions that could be imposed on his bail. The court granted the application for bail, subject to specific conditions designed to ensure the applicant's compliance and to protect the community. The court emphasised the importance of these conditions in addressing the risk of further offending and ensuring the applicant's appearance at trial.

The final orders of the court included the release of the applicant on bail, subject to conditions such as residing at a specified address, reporting to a bail supervisor, and refraining from contact with witnesses. The court also imposed electronic monitoring and a curfew as additional safeguards. The applicant was required to surrender any travel documents and to comply with a strict bail schedule. The court's decision balanced the applicant's right to liberty with the need to protect the community and ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders