Re Forrester - [2022] VSC 654

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0273

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by TYSON FORRESTER

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 October 2022
DATE OF RULING:	28 October 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Forrester
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 654

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Charges of culpable driving causing death, driving under the influence of a drug and driving at excessive speed – Single vehicle collision – High level of methylamphetamine detected in applicant’s bloodstream – Speed before impact estimated between 166 kph and 195 kph – Previous convictions for drug related offending – Applicant recently intercepted on four occasions while driving vehicle while exceeding the prescribed concentration of drug in bloodstream – Proposal that applicant undergo treatment in the Odyssey House Residential Therapeutic Residential Rehabilitation Program – Delay - Applicant not previously in custody – Whether compelling reason established – Whether unacceptable risk of re-offending, of endangering public safety and failing to answer bail – Bail Act 1977 ss 3AAA, 4C, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Hannebery KC	Angus Cameron Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr J Johnson	Ms A Ruberto, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

In the early morning of 3 April 2022, the applicant, Tyson Forrester, was the driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in a single vehicle collision on Central Kialla Road, Arcadia, which resulted in the death of the passenger in the vehicle, Reagen McDonald. On 5 April, the applicant was charged with a number of offences arising out of the collision, including culpable driving, driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of a drug to the extent that he was incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, driving at a speed that was in excess of the speed limit, and being a learner driver, driving a motor vehicle on a highway without an appropriate supervising driver sitting beside him.

On 20 September, the applicant unsuccessfully applied to the Magistrates’ Court for bail. He now applies to this Court for bail.

Circumstances of offending

The accident occurred at approximately 1:40 am. Central Kialla Road is the main carriageway between Shepparton and Euroa, and is the continuation of the Shepparton-Euroa Road. At the point of the collision, the road was a two-way, two- lane sealed highway in good condition. The applicable speed limit was 100 kph. At the time of the collision, the road was dry.

Shortly before the collision, the applicant was driving a 2006 Ford Falcon vehicle at a high speed in a southerly direction on the roadway. His passenger, Ms McDonald, was seated in the front passenger seat. Ms McDonald was nineteen years of age. Immediately before the collision, the front tyre of the vehicle hit a small depression in the roadway, close to the eastern shoulder. As a result, the applicant…

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 Forrester

Details

AGLC: Re Forrester [2022] VSC 654
Case: [2022] VSC 654
Decision Date: 28 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application for bail by the applicant, who faced charges including culpable driving causing death, driving under the influence of a drug, and driving at excessive speed. The applicant was involved in a single vehicle collision where the speed before impact was estimated to be between 166 kph and 195 kph. The applicant had a high level of methylamphetamine in their bloodstream and had a history of drug-related offences. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had established a compelling reason for bail, whether there was an unacceptable risk of re-offending, endangering public safety, or failing to answer bail.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting and applying the Bail Act 1977. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the applicant had demonstrated a compelling reason for bail under section 3AAA, and whether there were grounds to refuse bail under sections 4C, 4D, and 4E. The court had to consider the applicant's history of drug-related offending, the high level of methylamphetamine detected, the excessive speed, and the recent interceptions where the applicant was driving while exceeding the prescribed concentration of drug in their bloodstream.

The court concluded that the compelling reason for bail had not been established. The applicant's history of drug-related offending, the high level of methylamphetamine detected, and the excessive speed before impact indicated a significant risk of re-offending and a threat to public safety. The court found that the applicant's proposal to undergo treatment in the Odyssey House Residential Therapeutic Residential Rehabilitation Program did not constitute a compelling reason for bail. The court further found that there was an unacceptable risk of re-offending, of endangering public safety, and of failing to answer bail. Consequently, the court refused the applicant's bail application.

The court's final orders included the refusal of the bail application. The applicant remained in custody pending the resolution of the charges against them. The court emphasised the importance of public safety and the need to prevent re-offending, particularly in light of the applicant's history and the circumstances of the alleged offence.

Orders