Re Charlton - [2021] VSC 342

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0122

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by Paul CHARLTON

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 June 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Charlton
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 342

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Alleged murder of partner – 14 year gap between alleged offence and laying of charge – No criminal offending in the interim –No attempt to flee – No relevant criminal history - Relative strength of prosecution case – Poor mental and physical health of the applicant – Difficult conditions in custody – Likely exacerbation of mental and physical problems – Stable relationship and accommodation – No unacceptable risk posed by applicant – Availability of substantial surety – Exceptional circumstances established – Bail granted with conditions – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms M Tittensor SC with Ms A Dixon	Galbally Parker Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms R Harper	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail in respect of a charge he faces of murdering his partner Joanne Howell (‘the deceased’).

In light of the charge with which the applicant stands accused, the exceptional circumstances test applies to this application. This means that the Court must refuse bail unless satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the grant of bail.

Procedural history

The offence was allegedly committed on the evening of 21 April 2007. The applicant was arrested and interviewed twice on 22 April 2007. He was released without charge.

In 2011, a coronial inquest was held, at the conclusion of which Coroner Spanos determined that the applicant had contributed to the cause of death of the deceased. The matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but no charge was laid at that time.

Following a further police investigation, the applicant was arrested at his home on 6 January 2021. He was interviewed again by police and provided no comment. He was charged with murder and has been in custody since that time.

The matter is next listed for committal mention at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 2021.

Summary of alleged offence

The applicant and the deceased met in July 2006 and formed a relationship. In December 2006, the applicant moved in with the deceased to a unit that she was leasing in Hughesdale. They lived there together until her death on 21 April 2007.

On the prosecution case, in the lead up to 21 April 2007, the relationship between the applicant and deceased had been volatile. On 7 April 2007, an incident occurred in which the deceased sustained a blood nose as a result of physical contact with the applicant. She subsequently gave conflicting accounts to several friends about the incident, with one 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 Charlton

Details

AGLC: Re Charlton [2021] VSC 342
Case: [2021] VSC 342
Decision Date: 11 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Charlton involved the applicant, who was facing a charge of murder allegedly committed fourteen years prior. The applicant's partner had died under suspicious circumstances, and the charge was only laid after a lengthy investigation. The matter was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, where the applicant sought bail pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings against him.

The court was required to consider whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977, particularly given the significant delay between the alleged offence and the laying of the charge. Key issues included the strength of the prosecution's case, the applicant's criminal history, and his health and living conditions. The court also considered the applicant's likelihood of attending court if released on bail, as well as any risk to the community. The applicant argued that he had no prior criminal record, had not attempted to flee, and had been in stable accommodation with a supportive partner. He also presented evidence of his deteriorating health and the severe conditions in custody.

The court found that the applicant had established exceptional circumstances warranting bail. The delay in charging did not necessarily weigh against bail, especially given the applicant's lack of any criminal activity in the intervening years. The applicant's health issues, both mental and physical, and the potential for these to be exacerbated by custodial conditions were deemed significant. The court also noted the strong support network and stable living situation the applicant had. The substantial surety offered further supported the granting of bail. The court concluded that there was no unacceptable risk posed by the applicant and that the criteria for bail had been met.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant be granted bail, subject to specific conditions, including a substantial surety, regular reporting, and restrictions on contact with potential witnesses. The applicant was also required to reside at a specified address and to adhere to a curfew. These conditions were designed to mitigate any risk to the community while allowing the applicant to prepare for his defence.

Orders