Re Paul Noel Dale - [2009] VSC 332

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1415 of 2009

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

And

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Paul Noel Dale

---

JUDGE:	BYRNE
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6, 7 August 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT	10 August 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Paul Noel Dale
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 332

---

Criminal Law – Bail – Applicant charged with murder – Whether exceptional circumstances – Likely delay of two years from arrest to trial – whether strong Crown case – Accused detained in severe circumstances in high security prison – whether unacceptable risk that accused would interfere with witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Dane QC and Mr SR Johns	Tony Hargreaves & Partners
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms MM Williams SC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

1 Paul Noel Dale, a retired police officer, stands charged with the murder of Terence Hodson in Kew on or about 15 May 2004. At the time of his death, Hodson, together with Mr Dale and another police officer, David Miechel, were charged with offences arising out of a burglary in Oakleigh. Hodson had made a statement implicating both Mr Dale and Mr Miechel in the burglary. The committal mention of the three men was listed for October 2004. As a consequence of the death of Mr Hodson, the case against Mr Dale and Mr Miechel was discontinued.

2 Mr Dale was arrested for the murder of Hodson on 13 February 2009 and remanded in custody. He has remained in custody in the Acacia Unit at Barwon Prison since that date. He has been placed in the high security provision, as I was told, for his own protection.

3 Mr Dale's application for bail was heard by the Chief Justice and dismissed on 26 March 2009. By notice dated 17 July 2009 he applied again for bail. I was persuaded to entertain this application because of the following new facts and circumstances. The prosecution brief has now been delivered so that a good deal more is known about the Crown case. The committal mention, which was expected then to take place in late 2009, has now been listed for 9 March 2010. And Mr Dale's psychological condition has deteriorated as a consequence of the conditions of his prison environment.

4 This is of course a case where the applicant bears the burden of showing exceptional circumstances. Counsel on his behalf relied upon three matters: the delay to the trial; the lack of strength of the prosecution case; and the circumstances of his detention. In addition they contended that his circumstances were such that bail was appropriate and that he presented no risk of offending or of interfering with witnesses.

5 I accept that the trial of this case will not occur before the end of…

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 Noel Dale

Details

AGLC: Re Paul Noel Dale [2009] VSC 332
Case: [2009] VSC 332
Decision Date: 10 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Paul Noel Dale involved the application for bail by the applicant, who was charged with the serious offence of murder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary concern of the court was whether the applicant, who had been in custody for an extended period, should be granted bail given the exceptional circumstances and the potential for further delays in the trial process. The applicant contended that the delay would be detrimental to his health and mental state, and that exceptional circumstances warranted his release on bail. The Crown, on the other hand, opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant posed a significant risk to witnesses and the community, and that the case against him was strong.

The legal issues before the court included whether the delay in the trial process constituted exceptional circumstances warranting bail, and whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of interfering with witnesses or obstructing the course of justice. The court had to balance the applicant's right to liberty against the need to ensure the safety of witnesses and the integrity of the judicial process. The court also needed to consider the strength of the Crown's case and the severity of the charge against the applicant.

In its reasoning, the court found that the delay in the trial process was indeed exceptional, given the expected two-year period from the time of arrest to the trial. However, the court determined that this factor alone was not sufficient to grant bail. The court also considered the severe nature of the charge and the strength of the evidence against the applicant, which it found to be compelling. Furthermore, the court was concerned about the risk that the applicant would interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, given the serious nature of the offence and the potential for witness intimidation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the risk of the applicant obstructing the course of justice outweighed the exceptional circumstances of the delay and refused the bail application.

The final orders of the court were that the bail application was refused, and the applicant would remain in custody pending the outcome of the trial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring the safety of witnesses and the integrity of the judicial process, and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victims and the community.

Orders