Re Johnson - [2023] VSC 333

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0082

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by STEVEN JOHNSON

BETWEEN:

STEVEN JOHNSON	Applicant
- and -
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 May 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 June 2023
DATE OF REASONS:	15 June 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Johnson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 333

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charge of murder — Minor criminal history — Weak prosecution case— Special vulnerability — Former police officer — Onerous conditions in custody — Health issues — Exceptional circumstances satisfied — Risk of interfering with witness — Risk of obstructing the course of justice — Risk can be managed by GPS monitoring device and strict conditions — Unacceptable risk not established — Bail granted — Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4E, 18, 18AA, 18AB.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	P Doyle SC A Roodenburg	Gallant Law
For the Respondent	M Gibson KC	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for bail by Steven Johnson [‘the applicant’]. He is 71 years old and in custody for the first time. He seeks bail in relation to one charge of murder, alleged to have occurred on 13 June 2006.

He was arrested on, and has remained in custody since, 22 November 2022.

This is his first application for bail. The matter is next listed on 16 June 2023 in the Warrnambool Magistrates’ Court for committal mention.

The application

The application for bail is supported by an affidavit dated 1 May 2023 affirmed by the applicant’s solicitor, Matthew Senia, attached to which there are a series of exhibits, including:

(a) a copy of the 73‑page detailed Victoria Police Summary of Facts;

(b) a medical report dated 21 April 2023 authored by Dr Phillip Hall, medical practitioner from the Lyndoch Medical Hub;

(c) a Victoria Police criminal history report relating to Glenn Fenwick; and

(d) a copy of the third instalment of a 2022–2023 rate notice relating to the applicant’s residential property in Wangoom [‘the Wangoom property’].

In response to the application, the respondent filed an affidavit in response prepared by Chloe Eckersley, an Australian Legal Practitioner employed by the Office of Public Prosecutions, dated 9 May 2023, also attaching a series of exhibits including for relevant purposes:

(a) a sentence/remand report relating to the applicant;

(b) an informant’s report authored by Detective Senior Constable Alicia Reivers of the Missing Persons Squad;

(c) a series of police statements;

(d) a 120‑page non‑arrest DVD recording of a police interview with the applicant;

(e) transcripts of audio listing device conversations including with the co‑accused and another person, as well as a conversation between the applicant and the co‑accused; and

(f) the applicant’s criminal history.

The written materials provided to the court in…

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 Johnson

Details

AGLC: Re Johnson [2023] VSC 333
Case: [2023] VSC 333
Decision Date: 2 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Johnson involved an application for bail by the respondent, who was charged with murder. The application was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent's background included a minor criminal history, and the prosecution case against him was described as weak. Additionally, the respondent's special vulnerability and his former employment as a police officer were factors considered in the court's decision. The court also examined the conditions of his custody, including health issues, to determine if bail was appropriate.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the exceptional circumstances, as outlined in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), were satisfied to warrant the grant of bail. The respondent argued that the risk of interfering with a witness or obstructing the course of justice was minimal and could be managed with conditions such as the use of a GPS monitoring device. The court had to weigh these arguments against the potential risks associated with granting bail, including the seriousness of the charge and the potential for flight risk.

The court determined that the exceptional circumstances were indeed satisfied in this case. While acknowledging the seriousness of the charge, the court found that the risk of the respondent interfering with a witness or obstructing the course of justice was not unacceptably high. The court concluded that these risks could be managed effectively through the imposition of strict bail conditions, including the use of a GPS monitoring device. Consequently, the court granted the respondent bail, considering the factors of his minor criminal history, the weak prosecution case, and the onerous conditions in custody.

The final orders included the grant of bail with strict conditions, such as the use of a GPS monitoring device and other specific restrictions designed to mitigate any potential risks. These orders aimed to ensure the respondent's appearance in court while protecting the interests of justice and the community.

Orders