Re Laverick - [2023] VSC 303

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0065

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

– and –

IN THE MATTER of an Application by REBECCA LAVERICK

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 & 12 May 2023
DATE OF RULING:	23 May 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Laverick
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 303

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — 62 charges relating to stolen goods, possessing drugs of dependence, possessing ammunition and prohibited weapons, possessing firearms, trafficking drugs of dependence, dealing with proceeds of crime — Heavily pregnant applicant — Surety — Co‑accused partner of applicant — Unborn child at risk of being removed from applicant in custody — Strength of the prosecution case — History of drug use — Exceptional circumstances satisfied — Unacceptable risk not found — Bail granted with strict conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	V Drago	Lauren Tye Legal
For the Respondent	K Hamill	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for bail by Rebecca Laverick [‘the applicant’].

The applicant is a 37-year-old woman who seeks bail on a total of 62 charges filed by informant Senior Constable Olivia Caso [‘the remand matters’]:

(a) handling/receiving/retaining stolen goods (19 charges);

(b) dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime (six charges);

(c) possessing a drug of dependence (13 charges);

(d) driving whilst authorisation suspended;

(e) possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence or permit (eight charges);

(f) possessing a prohibited weapon without an exemption or approval;

(g) using a false document;

(h) possessing a trafficable quantity of unregistered firearms;

(i) being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (seven charges);

(j) trafficking in a drug of dependence (two charges);[1]
[1]The supplementary affidavit in response filed on 5 May states that one of these charges (charge 62, traffick cocaine) was served on the applicant’s solicitor on 29 April 2023, however it is not confirmed when the charge was filed in the Magistrates’ Court. Further, as the charge was served after this application was filed, the applicant has not confirmed that she seeks bail in respect of it.

(k) trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine);

(l) possessing a substance, material, document or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence; and

(m) possessing a precursor chemical (hypophosphorous acid).

These matters are next listed on 2 June 2023 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for a committal mention.

The applicant has been remanded in custody since her arrest in the remand matters on 1 December 2022. The applicant was refused bail on 9 March 2023 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, on the basis that she failed to show exceptional circumstances, and there was an unacceptable risk that she would commit an offence while on bail and/or endanger the safety or welfare of any person.

At the time of the alleged offending in the remand matters, the applicant was…

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 Laverick

Details

AGLC: Re Laverick [2023] VSC 303
Case: [2023] VSC 303
Decision Date: 23 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Laverick, the applicant, who was heavily pregnant, applied for bail against multiple charges including possession of stolen goods, possessing drugs of dependence, possessing ammunition and prohibited weapons, possessing firearms, trafficking drugs of dependence, and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The application was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The applicant was facing 62 charges and had a co-accused who was her partner, with whom she shared a residence. The court was required to consider whether bail should be granted in light of the severity of the charges, the applicant's history of drug use, and the exceptional circumstances presented by her pregnancy.

The court addressed several legal issues, primarily whether the exceptional circumstances of the applicant's pregnancy, and the potential risk to her unborn child, could outweigh the gravity of the charges against her. It was also necessary to consider the strength of the prosecution case and whether there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would reoffend or fail to appear in court if released on bail. The court further examined the suitability of the proposed surety and the conditions that could be imposed to mitigate any risk posed by the applicant's release. After considering the evidence presented, the court concluded that the exceptional circumstances were satisfied and that there was no unacceptable risk of reoffending or failure to appear.

The court determined that the exceptional circumstances of the applicant's heavily pregnant state and the risk to her unborn child if she were to be incarcerated warranted granting bail. Despite the significant charges and the applicant's history of drug use, the court found that strict bail conditions could adequately address the risk of reoffending or failure to appear. The court emphasised the need for the applicant to comply with stringent conditions, including regular drug testing, electronic monitoring, and restrictions on her movements. The court also noted the support provided by the proposed surety, the co-accused partner. Ultimately, the court granted bail with strict conditions to ensure the safety and welfare of the applicant and her unborn child, as well as to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders