Re Hurle

[2008] VSC 494

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1416 of 2008
IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by Jamiee Lee Hurle

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 October 2008
DATE OF RULING:	29 October 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	IMO bail application by Jamiee Lee Hurle
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 494

---

Application for bail – applicant charged with drug trafficking and associated offences – delay in finalisation of evidence – no probability of matter being tried in under two years from date of arrest – delay not attributable to applicant - applicant has young children – exceptional circumstances justify the grant of bail on appropriate conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S R Johns	Valos Black & Associates
For the Defendant	Mr D Bliss	Office of Public Prosecutions
HIS HONOUR:

1. In this matter the applicant for bail, Jamiee Lee Hurle, is charged with a series of drug trafficking and associated offences, arising out of evidence obtained by way of a covert operation directed, in the first instance, to her mother, Leanne Walker's drug trafficking in the Warrnambool area.

2. As I understand it, there is surveillance evidence of a total of 22 trips made to either Melbourne or Ballarat by members of the applicant's family and associates where they met drug couriers, collected drugs, and made cash payments between 28 April 2008 and 9 September 2008. There is also evidence from telephone intercepts of exchanges of $134,000 over 13 trips, and evidence of discussions between Walker and a co-accused Nikolakis who, it appears, it is alleged was the principal supplier of the drugs.

3. The evidence also discloses that Hurle played a significant part in this activity, together with her mother. At the time of her arrest, drugs and other trafficking equipment were found at the property occupied by Hurle and Walker. The Crown case is that the drug trafficking involved concerned a commercial quantity of drugs of dependence.

4. The applicant was charged on 16 August 2008. It is plain that there is, among other things, a serious contest as to the precise quantities and nature of drugs involved in the extended dealings which are encompassed by the Crown case as a whole. Unfortunately, it appears that as a result of the probable delay in the final analysis of drugs seized and also, it appears, in the finalisation of evidence relating to telephone intercepts, that a committal mention will not take place until March 2009 and that the committal itself will not take place until the end of 2009. Further there is no probability of the matter actually coming to trial in the County Court in under two years from the date of the applicant’s arrest.

5. The expected delay is not in any way attributable to the applicant herself. In these circumstances, the Crown does not oppose the conclusion that exceptional circumstances justify the grant of bail to the applicant.

6. In my view the probable delay which is, from the point of this Court as a supervisory court, totally unacceptable, does constitute exceptional circumstances when it is coupled with a series of other factors. First, the applicant has infant children, and the proposed delay is in my view doubly unacceptable in these circumstances. It is apparent that imprisonment will cause hardship not only to the applicant who is herself at this stage to be presumed innocent, but also to her children as they progress through highly significant years in terms of their own personal development.

7. These factors also fall to be evaluated in a context where an appropriate place of residence for the applicant is available, and it is proposed that she will undertake drug counselling and, if appropriate, drug rehabilitation treatment during the course of bail. A surety is also available for the applicant.

8. When all these matters are taken into account, in my view, the probable delay in the present case is to be regarded as giving rise to exceptional circumstances and bail should be granted on appropriate conditions.

9. Counsel have formulated conditions and those conditions are:

(1)	the provision of a surety in the sum of $20,000;
(2)	residence at X, unless the applicant is participating in a residential program at X;
(3)	that the applicant not travel more than 60 kilometres from the X Post Office, except to attend court;
(4)	that she report to X Police Station each Monday and Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.;
(5)	that she surrender her passport, if any is held by her, and not apply for a passport;
(6)	that she not attend points of international departure;
(7)	that she not contact prosecution witnesses, except the informant;
(8)	that she not contact the co-accused, except members of her family and Daniel Greenwood;
(9)	that she participate in drug rehabilitation counselling as directed by X;
(10)	that she notify the informant if she enters into the X program.

---