Re Good - [2023] VSC 449

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0082

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by STUART GOOD

BETWEEN:

STUART GOOD	Applicant
- and -
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 June & 21 July 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 August 2023
DATE OF REASONS:	2 August 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Good
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 449

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, trafficking a commercial quantity of heroin, possession of a traffickable quantity of firearms, other drug charges, dealing with proceeds of crime — BailSafe support and private residential rehabilitation available — Surety — Evidence of drug addiction — Use of false identity and possession of false documents — GPS tracking proposed — Exceptional circumstances not shown — Unacceptable risk established — Bail refused — Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4E, 18, 18AA, 18AB.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	D Dann KC	Burn City Legal
For the Respondent	T Crouch	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for bail by Stuart Good [‘the applicant’]. He is charged by Senior Constable Matt Reynolds with 41 offences [‘the Reynolds matters’], namely:

(a) trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine;

(b) trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine;

(c) trafficking a commercial quantity of heroin;

(d) trafficking a commercial quantity of 1,4 Butanediol;[1]
[1]No section of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) is provided for this charge.

(e) possession of a traffickable quantity of firearms;

(f) trafficking methylamphetamine;

(g) trafficking heroin;

(h) trafficking 1,4 Butanediol;[2]
[2]No section of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) is provided for this charge.

(i) being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (four charges);

(j) negligently dealing with proceeds of crime (six charges);

(k) possession of methylamphetamine (two charges);

(l) possession of heroin (two charges);

(m) possession of 1,4 Butanediol (two charges);

(n) possession of cannabis;

(o) making a false document;

(p) possession of cartridge ammunition;

(q) possession of a prohibited weapon (five charges);

(r) dealing with suspected proceeds of crime;

(s) possession of anabolic steroids;

(t) possession of diazepam;

(u) possession of alprazolam;

(v) possession of naltrexone;

(w) possession of a prohibited weapon;

(x) possession of ecstasy;

(y) making a false document; and

(z) handling stolen goods.

Procedural history

On 16 January 2023, the applicant was charged in the Reynolds matters and remanded in custody.

On 27 January 2023, the applicant was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on the basis that he posed an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail or endangering the safety or welfare of any person.

On 24 February 2023, the applicant was granted bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on conditions that he be…

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 Good

Details

AGLC: Re Good [2023] VSC 449
Case: [2023] VSC 449
Decision Date: 2 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Good, the applicant faced charges that included trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, trafficking a commercial quantity of heroin, possession of a traffickable quantity of firearms, along with other drug charges. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Senior Magistrate J. The primary issue before the court was whether bail should be granted to the applicant, considering the serious nature of the charges and the circumstances surrounding the case.

The court had to determine whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community and whether exceptional circumstances existed that warranted the grant of bail. Factors considered included the support available to the applicant, such as the backing from BailSafe and the possibility of private residential rehabilitation, the presence of a surety, and the evidence of drug addiction. The court also examined the applicant’s use of a false identity and possession of false documents, which raised concerns about the applicant’s reliability and potential flight risk. Additionally, the court assessed the proposal of GPS tracking as a condition of bail.

After evaluating these factors, the court concluded that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community, given the severity of the charges and the likelihood of reoffending. The court found that the exceptional circumstances required for bail were not established, and thus, the risk of absconding and the potential harm to the community outweighed any support or rehabilitation plans in place. Consequently, the court refused bail, applying the provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

Orders