JUDGE:	Priest JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 July 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 July 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Gloury-Hyde
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 393

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant charged with Schedule 1 drug offences – Need to show exceptional circumstances justifying grant of bail – Whether unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977, s 3AAA, s 4, s 4A, s 4C,
s 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Morrissey SC	Andrew Hale
For the Respondent	Mr T Fitzpatrick	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant has been charged with a large number of drugs and other charges. He seeks bail from this court, acknowledging that he must show that exceptional circumstances exist justifying the grant of bail. The respondent opposes bail.
Not without some hesitation, I have concluded that I should grant bail on strict conditions. My reasons for that conclusion follow.
The charges and the orders relating to bail
Turning first to the relevant charges, on 14 May 2018, at 6.43 am, police executed a search warrant upon a serviced apartment occupied by the applicant, situated in Collins Street, Melbourne. In various rooms of the apartment, police allegedly located illicit drugs, drug paraphernalia, firearms and other items. April Acciarito, a 20 year old female occupant then present in the apartment, was arrested. The applicant returned to the apartment at 9.55 am. Among other items (including cash, lignocaine and adrenaline injections), he was found in possession of a large quantity of zip lock ‘deal bags’. In the course of their search of the apartment, police allegedly located approximately 137.3 grams of ice[1] (134.2 grams of which was found in two zip lock bags inside a safe), 3015.6 grams of GHB[2] and $11,123.90 in cash ($10,305.00 being found in a safe, and $818.90 on the applicant’s person). As a result, the applicant was charged with the following:
·     trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, respectively methylamphetamine and GHB (two charges — charges 1 and 4);[3]
·     trafficking in a drug of dependence, respectively methylamphetamine and GHB (two charges — charges 2 and 5);[4]
·     possessing a drug of dependence, including methylamphetamine, GHB, cocaine and other drugs (nine charges — charges 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13);[5]
·     dishonestly receiving stolen goods (one charge — charge 14);[6]
·     three firearms charges, including possessing a registered Category A longarm without a licence (charge 15), possessing a registered Category B longarm without a licence (charge 16) and failing to store a firearm in secure manner (charge 17);[7]
·     negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime (one charge…

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 Gloury-Hyde

Details

AGLC: Re Gloury-Hyde [2018] VSC 393
Case: [2018] VSC 393
Decision Date: 17 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Gloury-Hyde, the applicant, facing charges related to Schedule 1 drug offences, applied for bail. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether exceptional circumstances existed that would justify the granting of bail, considering the risk the applicant might pose if released.

The court considered the applicant's history, the nature of the charges, and the potential impact on the community. It examined whether the applicant would commit an offence while on bail, as per section 4 of the Bail Act 1977. Additionally, the court evaluated the principles set out in sections 4A, 4C, 4E, and 3AAA of the Act, which govern the assessment of bail applications. The court found that despite the serious nature of the charges, the applicant's likelihood of reoffending was not high enough to warrant denying bail outright.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicant's prospects of success at trial and the circumstances of the case warranted granting bail. The court recognised that the applicant's release would not pose an unacceptable risk to the community and that the principles of justice would be served by allowing the applicant to prepare a defence. The orders made by the court included the applicant's release on bail, subject to specific conditions designed to ensure compliance and mitigate any risk of reoffending.

Orders