Re Application for Bail by Rebecca Dillon - [2019] VSC 80

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0301

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Rebecca DILLON

---

JUDGE:	MAXWELL P
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 December 2018
DATE OF ORDERS:	5 December 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 February 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by Rebecca Dillon
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 80

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for Bail – Charges of criminal damage, causing false fire alarm to be given, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail – Applicant on bail for persistent breaches of family violence intervention order at time of offending – Schedule 2 offences – Exceptional circumstances and unacceptable risk test applied – Applicant unlikely to receive custodial sentence – Exceptional circumstances conceded by respondent – Whether unacceptable risk established – Surrounding circumstances – Intellectual disability – Pattern of behaviour demonstrated risk of reoffending – Not unacceptable risk – Lower end of seriousness – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA, 30B, sch 2.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms S Fitzgerald with Ms H Canham	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Dr I Freckelton QC	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 26 October 2018, Rebecca Dillon (‘the applicant’) was charged by police with the offences of criminal damage, causing false fire alarm to be given,[1] and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. These charges arise out of events alleged to have occurred the previous day. At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail in respect of nine outstanding matters, referred to below.
[1]This charge was later withdrawn.

At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was subject to a family violence intervention order (‘FVIO’), naming her ex-partner, Leigh Roach, and her daughter (‘K’) as the affected family members. This order expires on 13 June 2019.

The applicant was in custody from 26 October 2018 onwards. She was refused bail in respect of the present charges in the Magistrates’ Court on 26 October, 13 and 20 November 2018. On 13 November 2018, her bail was revoked in relation to the balance of the outstanding matters.

On 23 November 2018, the applicant applied to this Court for a grant of bail. At that time, all charges formed part of a consolidated plea which was listed for further plea and sentence on 18 December 2018 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

The offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail is a Schedule 2 offence.[2] Because the offence is alleged to have been committed while the applicant was on bail for another Schedule 2 offence — persistent contravention of a FVIO[3] — ss 4AA(2)(c)(i) and 4A of the Bail Act 1977 (the ‘Act’) required that bail be refused unless the Court was satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed justifying the grant of bail,…

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 Rebecca Dillon

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail by Rebecca Dillon [2019] VSC 80
Case: [2019] VSC 80
Decision Date: 22 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rebecca Dillon applied to the Supreme Court of Queensland for bail in relation to charges of criminal damage, causing a false fire alarm to be given, and committing an indictable offence while on bail. At the time of the offending, Dillon was already on bail for persistent breaches of a family violence intervention order. The court was required to determine whether bail should be granted under the Bail Act 1977, considering both the exceptional circumstances test and the unacceptable risk test. The exceptional circumstances test was not in dispute, as the respondent conceded that such circumstances existed. The central issue was whether the unacceptable risk test was satisfied, which involves considering the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the offence, and the likelihood of reoffending.

The court considered the nature of the offences, which were at the lower end of seriousness, and the likelihood of a custodial sentence, which was considered low. The court also considered Dillon's intellectual disability and her history of offending, including her persistent breaches of a family violence intervention order. While the pattern of behaviour demonstrated a risk of reoffending, the court found that this did not establish an unacceptable risk. The court concluded that the unacceptable risk test was not satisfied and granted bail, subject to conditions.

The court's decision was influenced by the lower seriousness of the offences, the likelihood of a non-custodial sentence, and the exceptional circumstances already conceded by the respondent. The court recognised the risk of reoffending but determined that it did not rise to the level of an unacceptable risk. The court granted bail, imposing specific conditions to mitigate the risk of reoffending and ensure Dillon's attendance at court. The court's decision highlights the importance of balancing the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of a custodial sentence, and the surrounding circumstances when determining whether to grant bail.

Orders