Re Karisson - [2023] VSC 45

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0327

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and –

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Andrew KARISSON

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 February 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 February 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Karisson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 45

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Forty-four-year-old applicant with extensive criminal history – Bail sought on eleven charges including two of trafficking a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence – Revocation of earlier grant of bail due to re-offending and failing to comply with curfew and other conditions - Forfeiture of surety of $900,000 as a result of breaches – Prosecution case of reasonable strength – Trial listed to commence in 3½ months – Serious offending – Long term of imprisonment inevitable upon conviction – Family supports and substantial surety failed to ensure compliance in past – Exceptional circumstances not made out – Unacceptable risk in any event – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms L Ristivojevic	Sarah Tricarico Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr J Shaw with Ms N Grunwald	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail in respect of 11 charges he faces which are contained on an indictment filed against him in the County Court. The charges include two charges of trafficking a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence[1] (‘trafficking LCQ’) and lesser alternatives to those charges, as well as charges of handling stolen goods and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. The trial of the applicant is listed to commence on 24 May 2023.
[1]Methylamphetamine (‘MA’) and ephedrine.

By virtue of the inclusion of the charges of trafficking LCQ and the alternatives of trafficking a commercial quantity in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), the applicant is in the position of needing to satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail before he can succeed in the application.

Procedural history and compliance with earlier grant of bail

The procedural history of this matter is lengthy and unfortunate, due in part to the delays introduced into the criminal justice system by the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic about a year after the applicant was charged, but also to his poor conduct in connection with a grant of bail which was eventually made to him.

The applicant was charged with these and other offences on 17 April 2019 and remanded in custody.[2] Bail was refused in the Magistrates’ Court on 4 June 2019. On 2 August 2019, bail was refused by Coghlan JA in this Court.[3] On 22 April 2020, bail was granted in the Magistrates’ Court by his Honour Magistrate Goldberg. There was a surety of $900,000 provided by the parents of the applicant, and…

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 Karisson

Details

AGLC: Re Karisson [2023] VSC 45
Case: [2023] VSC 45
Decision Date: 13 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Re Karisson was a bail application before the Court of Appeal. The applicant, a forty-four-year-old with an extensive criminal history, sought bail on eleven charges including two counts of trafficking a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence. The application followed the revocation of an earlier grant of bail due to the applicant's re-offending and failure to comply with a curfew and other bail conditions, resulting in the forfeiture of a $900,000 surety. The prosecution argued that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and that a long term of imprisonment was inevitable if the applicant was found guilty.

The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the applicant's extensive criminal history, coupled with the failure to comply with the previous bail conditions, meant that there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would re-offend if granted bail, and whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant a departure from the general principle that bail should be denied in cases involving serious drug trafficking offences. The court also had to consider the strength of the prosecution's case and the time until the trial was due to commence.

The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution's case was of reasonable strength, and that a lengthy term of imprisonment was inevitable if the applicant was convicted. The applicant's criminal history, the nature of the current charges, and the forfeiture of the previous surety due to breaches of bail conditions, all pointed towards an unacceptable risk of re-offending if bail was granted. The court found that the family supports and the substantial surety had not ensured compliance in the past, and therefore, there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from the general principle. The court concluded that the risk to the community was too great and that the application for bail should be dismissed. The court also noted that the trial was due to commence in 3½ months, which provided sufficient time for the prosecution to prepare its case.

Orders