Re Paul Hanlon Flood - [2010] VSC 605

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 180 of 2010

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)
and
IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by PAUL HANLON FLOOD

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 December 2010
DATE OF RULING:	17 December 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Paul Hanlon Flood
MEDIUM NEUTRAL ITATION:	[2010] VSC 605

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Requirement to “show cause” – Bail Act s 4(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Gray	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr D Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Paul Hanlon Flood (“the applicant”). The applicant is charged with aggravated burglary, that offence being alleged to have been committed on Thursday 11 February 2010. The offence of aggravated burglary is a breach of s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958. Under s 4 of the Bail Act, having been charged with aggravated burglary, the applicant is required to show cause why his detention in custody is not justified.

The Crown opposes this application for bail on the basis that the applicant is unable to show cause as to why bail should be granted. The Crown has also submitted that in the event that the applicant is granted bail, he is at risk of further offending, failing to appear and/or interfering with witnesses.

Circumstances of the alleged offending

The prosecution allege that on Thursday 11 February 2010, the applicant entered premises at a particular address and then the bedroom of Mr Stephen King who resided there. The applicant is alleged to have entered the premises with the intention of assaulting King, he and King apparently being known to each other. The applicant accused King of “trash[ing]” his house and then struck King with a wooden fence paling over the head and arm. It is alleged that the blows to Mr King’s head resulted in deep lacerations. The applicant is also alleged to have struck King to the left arm but eventually King pushed the applicant out of the bedroom.

The applicant then left the premises shouting abuse as he did so. Police attended the house and the wooden fence paling used to assault King was recovered. This offence, and another offence to which I will refer shortly are alleged to have occurred two days after the applicant was granted bail in relation to other, unrelated offences.

The Bail Act

Under s 4(3) of the Bail Act, in assessing whether the circumstances constitute an unacceptable risk I must have regard to all matters appearing to be relevant and, in particular, to such of the following considerations as appear to be relevant—

(a)the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b)the character, antecedents, associations, home environment and background of the accused person;
(c)the history of any previous grants of bail to the accused person;
(d)the strength of the…

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 Paul Hanlon Flood

Details

AGLC: Re Paul Hanlon Flood [2010] VSC 605
Case: [2010] VSC 605
Decision Date: 17 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Paul Hanlon Flood involved an application for bail by the accused against the state. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for his release on bail, as required by section 4(4) of the Bail Act.

The court was required to determine if the applicant had provided adequate justification for his release, considering the seriousness of the charges against him and the risk he posed to the community. The applicant argued that he had a strong connection to the community, stable employment, and no prior criminal history, which should warrant his release on bail. The prosecution, however, contended that the applicant had been charged with serious offences and that his release could lead to further offending and risk to the community.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the applicant's arguments for bail were compelling, particularly regarding his ties to the community and employment. Nevertheless, the gravity of the charges and the potential risk to the community could not be overlooked. Ultimately, the court decided that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause for his release on bail, and his application was denied. The court emphasised that the applicant's failure to provide convincing evidence of reduced risk to the community was a critical factor in its decision.

The final orders of the court were that the application for bail was dismissed, and the applicant was to remain in custody pending the resolution of the charges against him.

Orders