Re Casale - [2017] VSC 568

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0167

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by SAVERIO CASALE

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 September 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 September 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Casale
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 568

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Trafficking a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence – Firearms charges – Using or procuring the use of intimidation – Requirement to show ‘exceptional circumstances’ – Whether exceptional circumstances made out – Whether an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail, endangering the safety or welfare of members of the public or interfering with witnesses – Exceptional circumstances not made out – Unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A Hassan	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr D Sheales	MIR Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant has been in custody since 31 March 2017. He is currently facing the following charges:

·trafficking a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) (charge 1);
·prohibited person possessing a firearm (charge 2);
·possessing an unregistered general category handgun (charge 3);
·prohibited person possessing a silencer (charge 4);
·acquiring a general category handgun except from a licensed firearms dealer (charge 5);
·altering the serial number on a firearm (charge 6);
·possessing a firearm with no serial number (charge 7);
·possessing a drug of dependence (cannabis) (charge 8);
·possessing more than three unregistered firearms (charge 9);
·acquiring more than three unregistered firearms within 12 months (charge 10);
·theft of a firearm (charge 11);
·prohibited person possessing a firearm (charge 12);
·altering the serial number on a firearm (charge 13);
·possessing a firearm with no serial number (charge 14);
·shortening the barrel of a long-arm firearm (charge 15);
·altering firearms to a different category without consent of the Chief Commissioner (charge 16);
·prohibited person possessing a firearm (charge 17);
·altering the serial number on a firearm (charge 18);
·possessing a firearm with no serial number (charge 19);
·prohibited person possessing a firearm (charge 20);
·prohibited person possessing a firearm (charge 21);
·prohibited person possessing a silencer (charge 22);
·unlicensed storage of firearms in an insecure manner (charge 23);
·possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence/permit (charge 24);
·unlicensed storage of cartridge ammunition in an insecure manner (charge 25);
·procuring the use of intimidation against a person believing that person may be or may become involved in a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding (charge 26).

A bail application in respect of these charges was refused in the Magistrates’ Court on 23 June 2017. On 17 August 2017, the applicant filed an application in this Court for bail. Because the applicant is charged with trafficking a drug of dependence in a quantity not less than the applicable commercial quantity, contrary to s 71AA of…

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 Casale

Details

AGLC: Re Casale [2017] VSC 568
Case: [2017] VSC 568
Decision Date: 21 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Casale, the appellant, Mr Casale, appealed against a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland which denied him bail. Mr Casale faced charges including trafficking a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, use or procurement of intimidation, and possession of firearms. The Supreme Court found that there were unacceptable risks if he were to be released on bail, including the risk of committing further offences, endangering the safety or welfare of the public, and interfering with witnesses. Mr Casale sought to overturn this decision, arguing that exceptional circumstances existed that warranted his release on bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify the appellant's release on bail, despite the significant risks associated with his potential reoffending. Additionally, the court had to determine whether there were unacceptable risks that would prevent him from being granted bail. The appellant contended that his family situation, which included the care of his young children, constituted exceptional circumstances. The respondent, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, argued that the appellant's criminal history and the severity of the charges against him precluded the existence of exceptional circumstances and posed an unacceptable risk to the community if he were released.

The court examined the appellant's history of drug trafficking, the seriousness of the current charges, and the potential for reoffending. It noted that the appellant had a substantial criminal record and had previously failed to comply with bail conditions. The court found that the appellant's family situation, while unfortunate, did not constitute exceptional circumstances sufficient to outweigh the significant risks he posed to the community. Furthermore, the court determined that there was an unacceptable risk that the appellant would commit further offences if released on bail. Consequently, the court upheld the decision to deny bail, finding that the risk to the community and potential for witness interference outweighed any exceptional circumstances presented.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the appellant's appeal against the Supreme Court's decision to deny him bail. The appellant remained in custody pending the resolution of his criminal charges.

Orders