Re Gregory Rodin - [2014] VSC 656

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0168

IN THE MATTER of the Crimes Act 1958

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Gregory Rodin

---

JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 November 2014
DATE OF RULING:	18 December 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Gregory Rodin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 656 First revision (9 August 2016)

---

[REDACTED VERSION]
BAIL APPLICATION – Trafficking drugs of dependence in commercial & large commercial quantities contrary to ss 71 and 71AA of Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act1981 - Whether exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail – Whether delay until trial is exceptional circumstance – Numerous prior convictions - Whether unacceptable risk of reoffending – Need for treatment for substance abuse, depression and chronic grief following death of sister - application granted on conditions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 4(2)(aa), (d)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms C B Hollingworth	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P C Dane QC	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant for bail, Gregory Rodin, was arrested on 10 June 2014, charged with total of 20 charges relating to drug and firearm offences, and remanded in custody that day. The offences with which Mr Rodin is charged are as follows:

One charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence of a large commercial quantity (methylamphetamine). [1]
[1]Originally Mr Rodin was charged with two counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity, but on 18 December the court was informed that the count in respect of trafficking in methylamphatamine had been replaced with a count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity: the alleged quantity of that drug now being 3.188kg.
One charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence of a commercial quantity (1, 4 butanediol).
Two charges of possession of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine).
One charge of possession of a drug of dependence (1, 4 butanediol).
One charge of possession of a drug of dependence (actiq).
One charge of possession of a drug of dependence (heroin).
Two charges of possession of materials for trafficking in a drug of dependence.
Two charges of possession of precursor chemicals (two charges).
One charge of possession of a prohibited weapon (knuckleduster).
One charge of possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime.
Three charges of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
One charge of possession of cartridge ammunition.
One charge of possession of an explosive.
Two charges of possession of a tablet press.

Bail has been refused on one previous occasion by Magistrate Reardon on 24 June 2014.

A committal mention was listed (and has since been held) for 11 December 2014, together with the committal mention of the applicant’s two co-accused who were arrested in September 2014.

Because the applicant is a person charged with offences contrary to ss 71 and 71AA…

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 Gregory Rodin

Details

AGLC: Re Gregory Rodin [2014] VSC 656
Case: [2014] VSC 656
Decision Date: 18 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Gregory Rodin involved an application for bail by the defendant, who was facing charges related to the trafficking of drugs of dependence in commercial and large commercial quantities. The charges were laid under sections 71 and 71AA of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether there were exceptional circumstances that justified the grant of bail to the defendant, given the seriousness of the charges and his criminal history. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the delay in the trial proceedings constituted an exceptional circumstance and whether the defendant posed an unacceptable risk of reoffending. The court also considered the defendant's need for treatment for substance abuse, depression, and chronic grief following the death of his sister.

The court examined the nature and seriousness of the offence, the defendant's criminal history which included numerous prior convictions, and the need for the defendant to receive treatment for his substance abuse, depression, and grief. The court concluded that there were exceptional circumstances present, including the delay in the trial proceedings. The court determined that the defendant's risk of reoffending could be managed through the imposition of bail conditions. The court found that the defendant's need for treatment, particularly for substance abuse, was a significant factor in favour of granting bail. The court ultimately decided that the defendant could be granted bail on specified conditions, as outlined in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

The court ordered that Gregory Rodin be released on bail on the conditions specified, including regular reporting to the bail justice, attending a treatment program for substance abuse, and abiding by a curfew. The court also imposed conditions to ensure the defendant did not engage in any further criminal activity. The orders reflect the court's consideration of the exceptional circumstances, the defendant's treatment needs, and the risk of reoffending.

Orders