Re Goodwin - [2021] VSC 504

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0209

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by DYLAN GOODWIN

---

JUDGE:	Coghlan JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 August 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 August 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Goodwin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 504

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Committing an indictable offence whilst on bail – Compelling reason made out – No unacceptable risk – Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J. Portelli	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr A. Singh	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Dylan Goodwin (‘the applicant’) was arrested and remanded on 30 July 2021 on five charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence, five charges of possessing a drug of dependence, one charge of negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime and one charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (‘the informant Trantor matters’). On 13 August 2021 the matters can before me as an application for bail. I granted the application and indicated that I would provide reasons. These are those reasons.

The charges arise from the execution of a search warrant at the house of the applicant’s co-accused on 30 July 2021; the applicant was present at the premises. At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail for charges of theft of a motor vehicle, two charges of possessing a drug of dependence, one charge of possessing a controlled weapon, one charge of possessing a registered long arm firearm and one charge of possessing cartridge and ammunition (‘the informant Lightbody matters’). Those charges arise from events on 22 May 2021 when a vehicle in which the applicant was a passenger was intercepted and searched by police. Bail in those matters was revoked on 5 August 2021.

For completion, at the time of this alleged offending, the applicant was also on summons for a charge of failing to stop a vehicle on police request, using an unregistered motor vehicle, unlicensed driving and breaching the Chief Health Officer’s directions after he was intercepted while driving an unregistered motorcycle in Pakenham on 18 July 2020.

The alleged offending

The informant Lightbody matters, as I have already indicated, relate to the applicant being apprehended whilst a passenger in a vehicle being driven by Michel Yazbek, his co-accused, who was driving a stolen van in Dandenong South when intercepted by the police. The applicant and the co-accused exited the vehicle while a search was undertaken by police. The handle of the rear sliding door to the van was missing and the door locked, which led to police only searching the front part of the vehicle.

During the course of the search, the police located a plastic plunger in the centre console of the dashboard which contained…

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 Goodwin

Details

AGLC: Re Goodwin [2021] VSC 504
Case: [2021] VSC 504
Decision Date: 13 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Goodwin, the respondent applied for bail in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the application for bail should be granted, considering the respondent's involvement in trafficking a drug of dependence and the risk of committing an indictable offence while on bail. The applicant argued that there was a compelling reason for the grant of bail, and that there was no unacceptable risk of re-offending or flight.

The court was required to consider the statutory criteria set out in the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), including whether there was a compelling reason for granting bail and whether there was an unacceptable risk of re-offending or failing to appear. The court also had to consider the respondent's character, antecedents, and the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a compelling reason for bail, as they had strong ties to the community, a stable employment history, and a supportive family environment. The court was also satisfied that there was no unacceptable risk of re-offending or flight, as the applicant had complied with previous bail conditions and had no history of failing to appear in court.

As a result, the court granted the application for bail, subject to certain conditions. The respondent was required to reside at a specified address, report to a bail justice on a regular basis, and refrain from contacting certain individuals. The court also imposed a curfew and imposed conditions limiting the respondent's travel. The court noted that the grant of bail was not an endorsement of the respondent's alleged criminal activities, but rather a recognition of the respondent's right to liberty subject to certain conditions.

Orders