Re Dixon - [2020] VSC 665

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0264

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by MARK DIXON

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 September 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 September 2020
DATE OF REASONS	8 October 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Dixon
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 665

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Attempted murder by applicant and two co-offenders – Victim shot to the head from close range – Applicant departed Victoria and travelled to northern New South Wales after the shooting – Arrested and extradited to Victoria – Applicant an Irish national with no real ties to Victoria – Previous instance of failing to answer bail and departure from Australia – Case reasonably strong – Delay likely to be over two years – COVID-19 considerations – Surety resident overseas – Amount of surety to comprise contributions from surety herself and her six siblings – Surety unsatisfactory - Accommodation not particularly stable – Applicant liable to be arrested by immigration officials – Exceptional circumstances not established – Unacceptable risk in any event – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G Steward	Sarah Tricarico Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr J Shaw	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applied for bail in respect of charges he faces of attempted murder, intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence (‘ICSIGV’), and recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence.

After hearing the application, I made an order refusing bail to the applicant, stating brief reasons for that decision. I indicated at the time that I would publish detailed reasons for my decision at a future time. These are those reasons.

Background and procedural history

After the commission of the alleged offence on 21 February 2019, it is alleged that the applicant departed Melbourne and made his way to Byron Bay in New South Wales (‘NSW’) with one of his co-offenders, Jack Harvey (‘Harvey’). The applicant and Harvey were arrested in Broken Head on 27 February 2019. The pair were charged, extradited to Victoria, and remanded in custody.

On 5 December 2019, the applicant and the two co-accused were committed for trial in this Court. A trial was listed to commence on 13 July 2020. Due to the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, that trial date was vacated. The trial is now fixed for 18 January 2021, with a directions hearing listed on 5 October 2021.

This was the applicant’s first application for bail. Neither of the co-accused has made any application.

Alleged offending

One of the co-accused, Stephen Tahaney (‘Tahaney’), started a property maintenance business with Daniel Saddik (‘Saddik’). Tahaney introduced an associate Ciaran Murphy (‘Murphy’), the brother of the applicant, into the business. In turn, Murphy introduced the applicant into the…

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 Dixon

Details

AGLC: Re Dixon [2020] VSC 665
Case: [2020] VSC 665
Decision Date: 25 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Dixon, the applicant sought bail in relation to charges of attempted murder. The applicant, along with two co-offenders, had shot a victim in the head from close range. Following the incident, the applicant left Victoria and travelled to northern New South Wales, where he was later arrested and extradited back to Victoria. The applicant was an Irish national with no real ties to Victoria and had previously failed to answer bail and departed Australia. The court needed to determine whether bail should be granted under the Bail Act 1977, considering the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the applicant, and the risk of flight.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the case against the applicant was strong enough to justify denying bail, whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of flight, and whether any bail conditions could mitigate this risk. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant's previous history of failing to appear in court, and the likelihood of the applicant being arrested by immigration officials if released on bail. The court also needed to assess the suitability of the proposed surety and the stability of the accommodation provided.

The court found that the case against the applicant was reasonably strong, and the proceedings were likely to be delayed for over two years, partly due to COVID-19 considerations. The applicant had no real ties to Victoria and had previously failed to appear in court, leading to an unacceptable risk of flight. The proposed surety, an overseas resident, and her six siblings, did not provide sufficient security, and the accommodation was not particularly stable. Additionally, the applicant was liable to be arrested by immigration officials if granted bail. The court concluded that exceptional circumstances had not been established, and the risk of flight was unacceptable in any event. Therefore, the court refused bail.

The court's final orders were that the application for bail was refused. The applicant was to remain in custody pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings against him.

Orders