Re James - [2020] VSC 602

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0208

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by TRENT JAMES

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 September 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 September 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re James
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 602

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – Controlled delivery to the applicant of nine boxes previously containing 180 kg of methylamphetamine with purity of 80.3 percent – Case to be fought on fault element – Strength of case – Delay – Availability of residential drug treatment – COVID-19 – Substantial sureties on offer – Exceptional circumstances not established – Unacceptable risk in any event – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Gumbleton with Mr S Tovey	Fayman Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms S Holmes	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Background and procedural history

The applicant applies for bail in respect of one charge he faces of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, and two charges of failing to comply with an order under s 3LA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

The first charge mentioned above is a Schedule 1 offence under the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’). As a result, I am required to refuse bail unless the applicant satisfies me that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the grant of bail.

The applicant was arrested and charged with the first charge on 17 June 2020. He was remanded in custody. He made an application for bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. On 30 July 2020, bail was refused, the magistrate not being satisfied as to the existence of exceptional circumstances, and in any event, being satisfied that there was an unacceptable risk the applicant would fail to surrender himself into custody in accordance with his bail.

The matter is next listed for committal mention at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 11 November 2020. I have been informed a committal hearing is unlikely to proceed until late 2021. A trial is unlikely to be heard in the County Court until 2023.

Personal background and criminal history

The applicant is 36 years old and grew up in Frankston South with his parents and two siblings. His parents separated when he was 14 and he then moved to Mornington with his mother and brothers while his father relocated to Malaysia. He maintained some contact with his father, who died in 2017. The applicant had behavioural and other difficulties at school. He left at the end of year 11 and has been in intermittent employment since then in a number of areas. In 2017, using the proceeds of the sale of his home, he set up and commenced to…

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 James

Details

AGLC: Re James [2020] VSC 602
Case: [2020] VSC 602
Decision Date: 18 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re James was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria, involving an application for bail by the applicant who was charged with attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug. The central issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail, considering the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the prosecution case, and the potential for delay if bail were granted. The court also needed to weigh the availability of residential drug treatment and the impact of COVID-19 on the applicant’s circumstances.

The court examined the legal principles under the Bail Act 1977, particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4D, and 4E. It considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the controlled delivery of nine boxes containing 180 kg of methylamphetamine with a purity of 80.3 percent. The court noted that the case would be fought on the fault element and that the strength of the prosecution case was significant. The potential for delay was also a concern, as was the risk of reoffending if bail were granted. The availability of residential drug treatment and the impact of COVID-19 were considered but did not sway the court’s decision.

The court concluded that the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant bail were not established. It found that there was an unacceptable risk of reoffending and that the applicant’s circumstances, while compelling in some respects, did not sufficiently mitigate the risk. The substantial sureties offered were not enough to overcome these concerns. Ultimately, the court refused bail, emphasising the seriousness of the charges and the need to protect the community.

The final orders of the court were that the application for bail was dismissed, and the applicant was to remain in custody pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

Orders