Re Jensen - [2022] VSC 365

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0153

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and –

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by DANIELLE JENSEN

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 June 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Jensen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 365

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant charged with drug offences – Whether compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail – Whether applicant an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any person or committing an offence whilst on bail – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977, ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4D and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms C Marcs	Galbally Parker Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms J Gleeson	Victoria Police

HER HONOUR:

The applicant is charged with trafficking in a drug of dependence (32 charges), possession of a drug of dependence (10 charges), fail to comply with an order to provide access to a device seized under warrant and dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. She has been in custody since 4 May 2022.

By a Notice of intention to make an application for bail filed 6 June 2022, the applicant applies for bail.

On 22 June 2022 I granted the applicant bail subject to the conditions detailed in paragraph 50 below indicating that I would later publish my reasons for so doing. These are those reasons.

Summary of allegations

The applicant is known by the name ‘Ellie’. At the time of the alleged offending, she resided with her partner and co-accused, Guy Kennish, at an address in Camberwell.

Prior to the applicant’s arrest on 3 May 2022, police had identified messages on the phones of multiple persons arrested in unrelated drug matters showing monthly menus from ‘Ellie in Camberwell’ referencing ‘Cold in the East’ and listing various illicit and prescription drugs with corresponding prices.

On 3 May 2022 police attended the Camberwell address of the applicant and Kennish to execute a search warrant. The applicant was located inside the address. Kennish was found walking out of a laneway at the rear of the property. They were both arrested. The following items were seized during the search:

· $3,250 in cash.

· A book with ‘Ellie’ printed on the front cover and containing notes and tick lists pertaining to drug use and trafficking, including amounts owed by customers.

· Various illicit drugs, including 2.73 grams of methylamphetamine,[1] one litre of GHB, 140 grams of hashish and unspecified amounts of amphetamine (MDMA) and cannabis.
[1]It was subsequently determined by police that 1.85 grams belonged to Kennish.

· Various prescription medications.

· Various drug paraphernalia including vials, deal bags, plungers and receptacles.

· A note stating ‘Raid is incoming. Police are onto you.’

The applicant was found in possession of three phones. She provided the passcodes for…

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 Jensen

Details

AGLC: Re Jensen [2022] VSC 365
Case: [2022] VSC 365
Decision Date: 28 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Jensen, the applicant, Jensen, was charged with drug-related offences and sought bail. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which considered the application under the Bail Act 1977. The primary issue before the court was whether there were compelling reasons to justify granting Jensen bail. This involved an assessment of whether Jensen posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any person or committing an offence while on bail.

The court carefully examined the statutory provisions of the Bail Act 1977, including sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4D, and 4E, to determine the appropriate course of action. The court considered the principles and criteria set out in the Act, which require the balancing of the applicant's right to liberty against the need to protect the community and ensure the applicant's attendance at trial. The court also took into account the specific circumstances of Jensen's case, including the nature and severity of the charges, the likelihood of a conviction, and the potential impact on the community if bail were granted.

After thorough consideration, the court concluded that there were compelling reasons to grant Jensen bail. The court found that while the charges were serious, the evidence did not establish that Jensen posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any person or committing an offence while on bail. The court was satisfied that appropriate conditions could be imposed to mitigate any potential risks. Consequently, the court granted Jensen bail, subject to specified conditions designed to ensure compliance and community safety.

The final orders of the court included the grant of bail to Jensen, with conditions that were intended to manage any risks associated with his release pending trial. These conditions aimed to ensure Jensen's attendance at court and to protect the community from any potential harm. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions and the specific circumstances of Jensen's case.

Orders