Re Hamilton-Green - [2021] VSC 484

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0179

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by
ADELAIDE HAMILTON-GREEN

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 July 2021, 9 August 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 August 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Hamilton-Green
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 484

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of trafficking a drug of dependence in not less than a commercial quantity, trafficking in a drug of dependence, possessing a drug of dependence, dealing with the proceeds of crime and committing an indictable offence while on bail – Applicant on bail for other charges at the time of the alleged offending – Applicant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying grant of bail – Delay – Availability of residential rehabilitation – Exceptional circumstances satisfied – Unacceptable risk not found – Bail granted on conditions – Condition for applicant to attend residential rehabilitation program - Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms A. Hancock	Paul Vale Criminal Law
For the Respondent	Mr P. Raimondo	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Adelaide Hamilton-Green (‘the applicant’) applies for bail with respect to charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence in not less than a commercial quantity; trafficking in a drug of dependence (two charges); possessing a drug of dependence (six charges); dealing with the proceeds of crime (two charges) and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (‘the Fenby matters’). These charges arise from a search warrant executed at the applicant’s residence on 20 April 2021. She was arrested and remanded in custody on that date.

At the time of the alleged offending in the Fenby matters, the applicant was on bail for charges of possessing a drug of dependence (two charges); handling stolen goods and making a false document, arising from a search warrant executed at her residence on 28 August 2020 (‘the Relf matters’). She was also subject to an 18-month community correction order (‘CCO’) for possessing a drug of dependence and various dishonesty offences, imposed in the County Court on 15 November 2019. The CCO has since lapsed. I note the Relf matters do not involve allegations of trafficking drugs.

On 14 July 2021, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court. She had been refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court the day before, on the basis that she failed to establish exceptional circumstances that justified the grant of bail and was considered to be an unacceptable risk of committing an offence whilst on bail.

Presently, the Fenby matters are next listed for committal mention in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 6 September 2021. The Relf Matters are next due before the lower court on 19 August 2021.

The applicable legislation

When interpreting and applying the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), the Court is required to have regard to the guiding…

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 Hamilton-Green

Details

AGLC: Re Hamilton-Green [2021] VSC 484
Case: [2021] VSC 484
Decision Date: 12 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re Hamilton-Green involved an application for bail by the defendant, who was facing multiple serious charges including trafficking in a drug of dependence in a commercial quantity, trafficking in a drug of dependence, possession of a drug of dependence, dealing with the proceeds of crime, and committing an indictable offence while on bail. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. At the time of the alleged offending, the defendant was already on bail for other charges. The central issue for the court was whether the defendant should be granted bail on the new charges, considering the seriousness of the offences, the risk of reoffending, and the availability of a residential rehabilitation program.

The court was required to determine if the defendant could demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify the grant of bail, given the gravity of the new charges and the risk of reoffending. It also had to consider whether the delay in applying for bail constituted a factor against granting it, and if the availability of a residential rehabilitation program could mitigate the risk of reoffending. The court had to balance the need to protect the community against the defendant's right to liberty.

In its decision, the court found that the exceptional circumstances test was satisfied, as the defendant had a history of complying with bail conditions and the residential rehabilitation program offered a significant opportunity for rehabilitation. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the new charges but found that the unacceptable risk of reoffending had not been demonstrated. The court granted bail subject to specific conditions, including that the defendant attend the residential rehabilitation program. The court emphasised the importance of the defendant's participation in the program to mitigate the risk of reoffending.

The court ordered that the defendant be released on bail, subject to the conditions that the defendant attend the specified residential rehabilitation program and comply with all other conditions of bail as previously set. The decision underscores the court's commitment to balancing the interests of the defendant and the community, while recognising the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders