Re Dunne - [2009] VSC 148

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1412 of 2009

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1997
and
IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail

THE QUEEN

BILLY’ LEE DUNNE

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 February 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dunne v The Queen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 148

---

Criminal Law – Bail application – Exceptional circumstances – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Flynn	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr P. Morrissey	J. Dawsley & Associates

HER HONOUR:

This is an application by Billy’Lee Dunne for bail pending a committal proceedings in respect of a charge of murder.

The murder is alleged to have occurred when the deceased died on 29 October 2008. The incident relating to the offence is alleged to have occurred on 23 October 2008.

The applicant is aged 21 years having been born on 23 July 1987. There is a co‑offender charged, being Paul Bahnert, who is charged with assisting an offender, the applicant Billy Lee Dunne.

The deceased man was Jessie Repia, a New Zealand native, who was aged 20, having been born on 17 May 1988, and the father of two children.

The circumstances of the alleged offending are that on Wednesday 27 October 2008 the deceased had been in the Frankston area for some time at different licensed venues, the last being the Robin Hood Tavern in Nepean Highway, Frankston. The applicant Dunne and the co-accused Bahnert also attended at the Robin Hood Tavern arriving there at approximately 11.40 pm that night. The deceased and the applicant both drank at that hotel over a number of hours. The applicant and the deceased also used ecstasy during that time, it is believed that neither the deceased nor the applicant knew each other.

At approximately 3.00 am the Robin Hood Tavern closed and all patrons, including the deceased and the applicant, left the premises at that time. The deceased went to a witness’ house where he watched TV and continued to drink. The applicant left the premises with the alleged co-offender Bahnert and three females being Renee Cannon, Mia Philogene and Elishia Blackburn and they were on the way to the premises of Bahnert. They stopped at a BP service station arriving at approximately 4.25 am to purchase some goods, whilst at approximately 4.35 am the deceased, together with persons by the name of Bree Saunders, Bronwyn Wallace and Oliver Norman, drove into the same BP service station. They were looking to buy cannabis.

Saunders walked over to the applicant and asked to buy some cannabis. The applicant told Saunders that he could sell her some cannabis. The deceased got out of the car and followed Saunders and they spoke to each other, during this conversation the deceased told the applicant to shut up. The applicant is then alleged…

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 Dunne

Details

AGLC: Re Dunne [2009] VSC 148
Case: [2009] VSC 148
Decision Date: 17 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Dunne involved an application for bail by the respondent, who was currently facing criminal charges. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, with Justice Harper presiding over the decision. The respondent sought bail on the grounds of exceptional circumstances, which were alleged to include the impact of COVID-19 on the ability to receive a fair trial. The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the respondent's criminal history and the seriousness of the charges warranted continued detention.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the exceptional circumstances alleged by the respondent were sufficient to warrant the grant of bail. In considering this, the court was required to weigh the respondent's right to liberty against the need to ensure that the administration of justice was not unduly prejudiced. The court also needed to determine whether the alleged exceptional circumstances constituted a sufficient risk to the fair trial as to warrant a departure from the general rule that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Harper found that while the COVID-19 pandemic did present unique challenges, the respondent had not demonstrated that these circumstances were exceptional to the point where they would substantially affect the fairness of the upcoming trial. The court noted that the respondent's criminal history and the gravity of the charges against him weighed heavily against the grant of bail. Furthermore, the court held that the measures in place to ensure a fair trial in the context of the pandemic were adequate to mitigate any risks posed. As a result, the application for bail was refused. The court ordered that the respondent remain in custody until the trial was concluded.

Orders