Re Dukic - [2018] VSC 664

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0256
S CR 2018 0265

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Dejan DUKIC
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for revocation of bail by the Director of Public Prosecutions

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 October 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 November 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Dukic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 664

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Exceptional circumstances – Charges of possessing drug of dependence, using a drug of dependence, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail – Delay – Strength of prosecution case – Surety – CISP – Bail granted – Previous grant of bail – Application for revocation of bail dismissed – Bail Act 1977.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Dejan Dukic	Mr D Hallowes SC	Fayman Lawyers
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms N Burnett	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 22 August 2018, Dejan Dukic was arrested and charged with possessing a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine), using a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine), and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. These charges relate to events alleged to have occurred on 22 August 2018, following the execution of a search warrant at a property in Rosebank Drive, Cranbourne North.

Mr Dukic has been in custody since his arrest. On 6 September 2018, he applied for bail at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, but was refused on 21 September 2018. The present charges are currently listed for a further mention on 16 January 2019.

There are two co-accused in this matter, Sasa Dukic, a brother of Mr Dukic, and Melinda Naughten. Sasa Dukic and Ms Naughten are partners, and Ms Naughten has also applied for a grant of bail from this Court.

At the time of his arrest, Mr Dukic was on bail in respect of 43 offences allegedly committed in October 2017. These involve charges of possessing a drug of dependence (15 counts), possessing more than three unregistered firearms, being a prohibited person possessing a firearm, possessing cartridge ammunition without licence, dishonest retention of stolen goods (three counts), dealing with property suspected proceeds of crime ($122,514.75), possessing explosive substance without lawful excuse, storing unauthorised explosive without approval, conduct endangering life (three counts), conduct endangering persons (three counts), possessing prohibited weapon without exemption (six counts), trafficking in drug of dependence (two counts), trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, possessing unregistered handgun (two counts), possessing registered handgun without licence, and trafficking in not less than a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence.

On 1 February 2018, Mr Dukic was granted bail in relation to those charges, after a period spent in custody following arrest. On 6 June 2018, bail was extended on slightly reduced conditions at the conclusion of his committal hearing at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.…

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 Dukic

Details

AGLC: Re Dukic [2018] VSC 664
Case: [2018] VSC 664
Decision Date: 2 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, who was charged with possessing a drug of dependence, using a drug of dependence, and committing an indictable offence while on bail. The application was made under the Bail Act 1977, seeking to either grant or revoke bail. The respondent had previously been granted bail, and the current application was to determine whether the bail should be revoked or if the conditions should be varied. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the respondent was eligible for bail under the circumstances and if the previous grant of bail should be revoked. The court needed to consider the nature of the charges, the delay in the proceedings, the strength of the prosecution case, and the suitability of the respondent as a person for bail. Additionally, the court examined whether the respondent was a suitable surety and whether the respondent complied with the conditions of the Court-Imposed Supervision Program (CISP).

The court held that the respondent was eligible for bail and dismissed the application to revoke the bail. The court noted that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the revocation of bail. The court found that the respondent was a suitable surety and that there was no significant delay in the proceedings that would warrant the refusal of bail. The court also found that the respondent complied with the conditions of the CISP and that the respondent was unlikely to reoffend. The court held that the delay in the proceedings was not significant enough to warrant the refusal of bail.

The court granted the application for bail and dismissed the application for revocation of bail. The court varied the conditions of the bail to include that the respondent was to comply with the conditions of the CISP and that the respondent was to report to the police each month. The court held that the respondent was a suitable surety and that the respondent was likely to appear at the trial.

Orders