Re Desic - [2022] VSC 537

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0209

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
- and –
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by STEVEN DESIC	Applicant

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 September 2022
DATE OF RULING:	12 September 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Desic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 537

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of attempt to traffick commercial quantity of border controlled drugs, unlicensed possession of firearms and others – Meaning of exceptional circumstances – Roberts v The Queen [2021] VSCA 28; Re Strachan [2021] VSC 538 – Applicant proposed residing at rehabilitation facility to treat drug addiction – Sureties proposed – Delay – Exceptional circumstances not established – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Phillip Dunn KC with Ms Stephanie Wallace	Theo Magazis & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms Krista Breckweg	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Steven Desic in relation to two serious matters. The first are charges prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (‘CDPP’), and the second is a matter arising out of charges laid by Victoria Police as the result of a traffic interception.

In the CDPP matter, the applicant is charged with the following offences:

(a)attempt to possess a commercial quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs;

(b) attempt to traffick a commercial quantity of controlled drugs;
(c)deal with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime with a value of more than $100,000;

(d)      possess a category C longarm without a licence;
(e)       possess a category B longarm without a licence;
(f)       possess an imitation firearm without an exemption;
(g)      possess a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine;
(h)possess identification information with the intention of engaging in conduct contrary to s 372.2(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth);
(i)possess substance, material, document or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence;

(j) possess a cattle prod taser without lawful excuse; and
(k)conceal or disguise the location of money or property with a value of more than $100,000, being the proceeds of crime.

In relation to the Victoria Police matter, the applicant is charged with:

(a) possess a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine (two counts);
(b) traffick a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine; and
(c)commit an indictable offence whilst on bail, namely possess a drug of dependence.

Procedural history

Between September and November 2021, the applicant and others were being investigated in relation to the CDPP matters. On 16 November 2021, search warrants were executed and on 17 November 2021, the applicant was arrested and interviewed in relation to the drug offending. The following day, 18 November 2021, he having been charged his application for bail was refused.[1]
[1]Affidavit in support filed on 15 August 2022, exhibit SP-4. Bail was refused…

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 Desic

Details

AGLC: Re Desic [2022] VSC 537
Case: [2022] VSC 537
Decision Date: 12 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Desic, applied to the Court for bail in relation to charges of attempting to traffick a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs, unlicensed possession of firearms, and other related offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the exceptional circumstances required for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) had been established. The Court needed to consider the nature and seriousness of the offences, the risk of reoffending, and any relevant factors that could support the grant of bail, such as the applicant's proposal to reside at a rehabilitation facility to treat drug addiction.

The Court examined the seriousness of the offences and concluded that the charges were of a significant nature, given the commercial quantity of drugs involved and the possession of firearms. The Court also considered the risk of reoffending, noting that the applicant had a history of drug-related offences. In relation to exceptional circumstances, the applicant proposed to reside at a rehabilitation facility to treat drug addiction and had proposed sureties. However, the Court found that the delay in applying for bail did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The Court noted that the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending outweighed any potential benefits of granting bail. The Court held that the exceptional circumstances required for bail had not been established.

Accordingly, the Court refused the application for bail. The Court's decision was based on the seriousness of the charges, the risk of reoffending, and the lack of exceptional circumstances. The Court noted that the delay in applying for bail did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The Court's decision was in line with the principles established in Roberts v The Queen [2021] VSCA 28 and Re Strachan [2021] VSC 538. The Court's final orders were that the application for bail be refused.

Orders