Re Hodgetts - [2024] VSC 21

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0013

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and –

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by ZANE HODGETTS

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	2 & 5 February 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 February 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Hodgetts
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 21

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – A large number of driving and other charges in several groups – Charges allegedly committed in breach of bail and community correction order – Young offender – Onerous conditions in custody – Poor performance on previous grant of bail – Significant risk of reoffending – Exceptional circumstances not established – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4A, 4AA, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms L Conwell	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Respondent	Mr Amitoj Singh	Victoria Police Legal Practice Group

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail in respect of a large number of charges he faces which have been laid by several members of Victoria Police. The charges and respective police informants are as follows:

Senior Constable Matthew Keays
·Possess drug of dependence
·Criminal damage
·Drive a motor vehicle when directed to stop
·Proceed through a red traffic arrow
·Drive over the speed limit
·Contravene conduct condition of bail (3 charges)
·Commit an indictable offence whilst on bail (4 charges)
·Theft

Detective Senior Constable Paul Follett
·Theft (5 charges)
·Drive while disqualified (5 charges)
·Dangerous driving (4 charges)
·Handle stolen goods
·Impersonating police
·Obtain property by deception (2 charges)

Constable Karan Vinod
·Threat to inflict serious injury
·Criminal damage.

I will refer to these charges as the Keays charges, the Follett charges and the Vinod charges.

The Court was informed that the Follett charges have now settled, and that the applicant will plead guilty to an agreed selection of charges at Frankston Magistrates’ Court on 23 February 2024. The charges which will not be proceeded with are two charges of driving at a speed dangerous which seemingly were laid in the alternative to two charges of driving in a manner dangerous.

In addition to the above charges, the applicant also faces charges for which he is currently on summons. They are as follows:

Informant Nicholson
·Contravene family violence intervention order

Informant Armstead
·Contravene community correction order.

By way of further important background, the applicant is on a 12-month community correction order (‘CCO’) imposed in the Frankston Magistrates’ Court on 11 July 2023, for offences of handle stolen goods (two charges); burglary; unlicensed driving (two charges); use unregistered motor vehicle; theft of a motor vehicle; commit indictable offence on bail (two charges); aggravated burglary; careless driving of a motor vehicle; contravene conduct condition of bail; fail to answer bail; and possess 1,4 butanediol. The conditions of the CCO include supervision and engagement with assessment and treatment for drug abuse…

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 Hodgetts

Details

AGLC: Re Hodgetts [2024] VSC 21
Case: [2024] VSC 21
Decision Date: 7 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Hodgetts involved the defendant, Hodgetts, who faced a multitude of driving and other charges across several groups. These charges were compounded by allegations of breaching both bail and community correction orders. The matter was before the court to determine whether Hodgetts should be granted bail. The court was required to weigh the principles outlined in the Bail Act 1977 against the circumstances of the case, particularly considering Hodgetts' history, the nature of the alleged breaches, and the risk of reoffending.

The legal issues central to the decision involved whether the conditions of bail should be modified or refused altogether. The court considered whether Hodgetts met the criteria under sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4A, 4AA, 4D, 4E, and 5AAAA of the Bail Act 1977, focusing on the risk of reoffending, the seriousness of the charges, and the potential impact of bail on the community. The court was also required to assess if the exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant bail existed, given the severity of the charges and the breach of previous bail conditions. Hodgetts argued that he had changed his lifestyle and was committed to rehabilitation, but the court found that the risk of reoffending remained high, and the exceptional circumstances were not convincingly established.

In delivering its decision, the court detailed the extensive history of Hodgetts' offending, noting the significant number of driving charges and other criminal activities. The court found that despite Hodgetts' claims of rehabilitation, the risk of reoffending was too high, particularly given the serious nature of the charges and the fact that he had breached previous bail and community correction orders. The court also highlighted the onerous conditions that had been imposed on Hodgetts while in custody, which he had not complied with effectively. Ultimately, the court determined that the unacceptable risk posed to the community outweighed any potential benefits of granting bail. Therefore, the application for bail was refused.

Orders