Re Foord - [2021] VSC 513

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0207

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Ashley FOORD

---

JUDGE:	Coghlan JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 August 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 August 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Foord
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 513

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Compelling reasons made out – No unacceptable risk – Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C. Farrington	Sarah Pratt & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr A. Singh	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Ashley Foord (‘the applicant’) was arrested on 6 July 2021 and remanded in custody on charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence, possessing a drug of dependence (two counts), knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime and possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption.

At that time, the applicant was on a community corrections order for offences of unlicensed driving, failing an oral fluid test within three hours of driving, failing to wear a motorbike helmet and failing to comply with vehicle registration standards. He was also on summons in relation to offending alleged to have occurred on 24 March 2021, for which he was charged with driving whilst disqualified and entering an intersection whilst traffic lights were red.

In relation to these matters, the applicant has been refused bail in the Magistrates' Court twice. The matter is next listed for mention in the Geelong Magistrates' Court on 7 September 2021. By application filed on 4 August 2021 the applicant seeks a grant of bail in this court. On 19 August 2021 the matter came before me as an application for bail. I granted the application and indicated that I would provide written reasons. These are those reasons.

The applicable legislation

At the outset of this application, there was some confusion about the applicable test for bail in this matter. That is, whether or not there was an uplift from compelling reasons to exceptional circumstances related to the Schedule 2 offence of trafficking in a drug of dependence by virtue of the fact that he was on a Community Corrections Order (CCO).

The applicant had previously been on a CCO for a Schedule 2 offence, namely drug trafficking, but was not on that CCO at the time of this alleged offending, and therefore none of the uplift provisions as a result of him being on a CCO apply. The fact that he was on a CCO simply is part of the surrounding circumstances which I am obliged to take into account.

As the applicant is accused of a Schedule 2 offence within the remaining s 3 of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), that is, trafficking in a drug of dependence, bail must be refused unless the applicant satisfies the Court that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant…

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 Foord

Details

AGLC: Re Foord [2021] VSC 513
Case: [2021] VSC 513
Decision Date: 20 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Foord, the applicant faced charges related to trafficking in a drug of dependence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the applicant sought bail. The central issue before the court was whether compelling reasons existed to grant the applicant bail, considering the serious nature of the charges. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether granting bail would present an unacceptable risk to the community.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence, the applicant's criminal history, and the potential impact on the community if bail were granted. The prosecution argued that the serious nature of the charges and the potential for harm warranted denying bail. However, the applicant's legal representation contended that compelling reasons existed for granting bail, including the applicant's ties to the community, the likelihood of complying with bail conditions, and the absence of any unacceptable risk to the public.

The court found that the applicant had presented compelling reasons for bail, such as their strong community ties and the low likelihood of reoffending. Furthermore, the court concluded that granting bail would not pose an unacceptable risk to the community, as the applicant had demonstrated a willingness to comply with bail conditions. Consequently, the court granted the applicant bail, allowing them to await the outcome of their trial outside of custody, subject to specified conditions.

No final orders were provided in the text.

Orders