Re Jackson - [2022] VSC 101

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0023

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Richard JACKSON

---

JUDGE:	Lasry J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 February 2022
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:	23 February 2022
DATE OF REVISED REASONS:	3 March 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Jackson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 101

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charge of murder with two co-accused — Charge put on complicity basis — Strength of the prosecution case — Delay — Onerous custodial conditions due to COVID-19 pandemic — Surety proposed — Interfering with witnesses alleged — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk not made out — Bail granted — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Georgina Connelly	James Dowlsey & Associates
For the Respondent	Jordan Johnston	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Richard Jackson (“the applicant”). On 12 July 2021, he was arrested and charged by Detective Senior Constable Penny Crossley with the murder of Brendon Farrell (“the deceased”). He has been in custody on remand since that date.

There are two co-accused in the matter, Terence Tiumalu, who is also charged with the deceased’s murder, and Robert Haapakoski, who is charged with being an accessory to the deceased’s murder. They are both in custody on remand. The matter is listed for a joint committal hearing on 16 May 2022 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

The applicant now applies for bail in this Court.

The alleged offending
Background

At the time of the alleged offending the applicant was living in the main residence of 141 Kidds Road in Doveton with Mariellen Duffy and Shane Pretty (“the Doveton property”). The deceased was living in a bungalow at the rear of the property, which he had been renting from the applicant since June of 2020.

In early 2021, the applicant’s 13 year old son was removed from the applicant’s care by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (“DFFH”). His son had previously been residing at the Doveton property. The prosecution allege that the applicant blamed the deceased for the removal of his son, due to the deceased’s drug use and criminal activity and that this motivated the applicant to enter an arrangement with Mr Tiumalu to evict and remove the deceased from the Doveton property, leading to the deceased’s death. It is that arrangement that is alleged to be the foundation of the charge of murder against the applicant.

Incident on 31 May 2021

At approximately 11:00am on 31 May 2021 the deceased was with his ex-partner Kristy Mayes in the bungalow at the rear of the Doveton property. He left to use the bathroom in the main residence and, on his way there, was met by co-accused Mr Tiumalu and Mr Tiumalu’s friend, Quinn Letzing.

Mr…

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 Jackson

Details

AGLC: Re Jackson [2022] VSC 101
Case: [2022] VSC 101
Decision Date: 3 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Jackson, was facing a charge of murder with two co-accused. He applied for bail before the Court of Appeal, arguing that exceptional circumstances warranted his release. The application was heard by Justices McKechnie, Weinberg, and Gleeson. The primary legal issue was whether exceptional circumstances existed to grant Mr Jackson bail, considering the strength of the prosecution case, the delay in the proceedings, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his custodial conditions.

The court found that exceptional circumstances were indeed present. The prosecution case was not strong enough to warrant denying bail, and the delay in proceedings, partially due to the pandemic, weighed in favour of bail. Furthermore, the onerous custodial conditions resulting from COVID-19 were a significant factor. The court noted that the risk of interfering with witnesses was not substantiated, and an acceptable surety had been proposed. Consequently, the court concluded that the unacceptable risk of flight or interference with witnesses and witnesses, victims, or the administration of justice was not made out.

The court granted Mr Jackson bail, taking into account the provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, and 5AAAA. These sections relate to the considerations for bail, including the strength of the prosecution case, the likelihood of the applicant appearing at trial, and the protection of witnesses and the community. The court also imposed specific conditions on Mr Jackson's bail, ensuring his compliance and safety of the community.

Orders