Re Gloury-Hyde (No 2) - [2018] VSC 520

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0167
S CR 2018 0233

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Revocation of Bail in the matter of Zachariah Gloury-Hyde

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by Zachariah Gloury-Hyde

---

JUDGE:	Priest JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 August & 7 September 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 September 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Gloury-Hyde (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 520

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Application for revocation of bail – Applicant charged with Schedule 1 drug offences – Applicant established exceptional circumstances justifying grant of bail – Applicant breached a conduct condition of bail following release – Breach of conduct condition is a Schedule 2 offence – Need to show that a compelling reason exists justifying the grant of bail – Whether unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail – Application for revocation refused – Bail granted on charge of breaching a condition of bail – Bail Act 1977, s 3, s 3AAA, s 4, s 4A, s 4C, s 4E, s 5AAA, s 18, s 18AE, s 18AF, s 24(3), s 30A.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

There are two applications before the Court. First, the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘DPP’) makes application under s 18AE of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) to revoke bail that I granted to Zachariah Gloury-Hyde (for convenience, ‘ZGH’) on 17 July 2018;[1] and, secondly, ZGH applies for bail on a charge laid under s 30A of the Act, relating to the contravention of a conduct condition of the bail earlier granted.
[1] Re Zachariah Gloury-Hyde [2018] VSC 393 (‘Bail reasons’).

For the reasons that follow, I will refuse the application for revocation of bail, and will grant bail on the charge under s 30A.

The applicant has been charged with a large number of drugs and other charges. I need not recite those charges, they are set out in my earlier reasons granting bail.[2] In order to secure bail on those charges, ZGH needed to show that exceptional circumstances existed justifying the grant of bail. Not without a deal of hesitation, I concluded that bail should be granted on strict conditions.
[2] Bail reasons, [3] and [6].
Once more, I need not recite in full the conduct conditions upon which I granted bail.[3] They are contained in my earlier reasons.[4]
[3]By virtue of s 3(1) of the Act, a conduct condition is a condition of bail imposed under s 5AAA(1).
[4] Ibid [38].

Among the conduct conditions that I imposed, however, were conditions that ZGH reside at the premises of the Hader Clinic, and ‘participate in The Hader Clinic 90-day residential treatment program as directed by Mr Jackson Oppy or…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Re Gloury-Hyde (No 2) [2018] VSC 520
Case: [2018] VSC 520
Decision Date: 7 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Gloury-Hyde (No 2) involved an application by the Crown to revoke the bail of Gloury-Hyde, who was charged with Schedule 1 drug offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the Crown could successfully establish that there were compelling reasons justifying the revocation of Gloury-Hyde’s bail following a breach of a conduct condition. The applicant had previously been granted bail on the basis of exceptional circumstances. The breach in question was classified as a Schedule 2 offence under the Bail Act 1977.

The court examined the statutory criteria outlined in the Bail Act 1977, particularly sections 3, 3AAA, 4, 4A, 4C, 4E, 5AAA, 18, 18AE, 18AF, 24(3), and 30A. The primary legal issue was whether Gloury-Hyde posed an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail. The Crown argued that the breach of the bail conditions indicated a significant risk of reoffending, thus justifying the revocation of bail. The court considered the seriousness of the original charges, the nature of the breach, and the applicant's history and circumstances.

The Supreme Court found that while the breach of the bail conditions was serious, it did not establish an unacceptable risk of reoffending. The court held that the compelling reasons necessary to revoke bail had not been met. Consequently, the application for revocation was dismissed, but Gloury-Hyde was granted bail on the charge of breaching a condition of bail. The court’s reasoning was based on a careful assessment of the statutory framework and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately concluding that bail should be maintained.

Orders