Re Pollard - [2021] VSC 315

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0112

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by Mark POLLARD

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 May 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Pollard
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 315

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Drug trafficking and other charges – Applicant on bail and subject to a community correction order at time – 29 year old applicant with substantial criminal history and poor bail history – Likely delay of 9 to 12 months in hearing of charges – Exceptional circumstances not established – Unacceptable risk in any event – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G Nikolovski	WS Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr A Singh	Victoria Police Legal Practice Group

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applied for bail in respect of the following charges he faces which were laid by the respondent Detective Senior Constable Nash:

·     Trafficking in a drug of dependence (two charges);
·     Possessing a drug of dependence (six charges);
·     Dealing with unauthorised explosives;
·     Handling stolen goods;
·     Possessing identification information; and
·     Resisting an emergency worker on duty.

It was agreed between the parties that the Court was required to refuse bail unless satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed that justified the grant of bail. This was because the applicant is accused of a Schedule 2 offence under the Bail Act 1977 while on bail for another Schedule 2 offence.

Having heard the application, I indicated that I was not satisfied of the existence of exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, I stated that even had I been so satisfied, I would have been satisfied that the applicant, if released on bail, would pose an unacceptable risk. I therefore refused the application for bail. I stated that I would publish detailed reasons for my decision at a future time. These are those reasons.

Procedural history

On 8 July 2020, the applicant was convicted of charges including attempted burglary, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, contravening a conduct condition of bail, further dishonesty offences, driving offences and drug possession offences. He received an aggregate term of imprisonment on some of the charges, and a 12 month community correction order (‘CCO’) on others.

On 18 August 2020, the applicant was arrested and charged with theft, possessing a drug of dependence and fraudulent use of number plates. He was released on police bail. The informant was Senior Constable Courtney.

The offences the subject of the present application were allegedly committed on 23 February 2021 while the applicant was subject both to the CCO mentioned above and the grant of bail. The applicant was arrested and charged on 23 February 2021.

Bail was refused on the current matters in Geelong Magistrates’ Court on 22 April…

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 Pollard

Details

AGLC: Re Pollard [2021] VSC 315
Case: [2021] VSC 315
Decision Date: 1 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Pollard involved the applicant who was on bail and subject to a community correction order at the time of the application. Pollard faced drug trafficking and other charges, including possessing a prohibited weapon, possessing a dangerous drug, possessing an item used in a drug offence, and failing to comply with a community correction order. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the court had to decide whether Pollard should be granted bail.

The legal issues before the court included whether Pollard's substantial criminal history and poor bail history constituted exceptional circumstances, and whether there was an unacceptable risk to the community if bail was granted. The court also had to consider the likely delay of nine to twelve months before the charges could be heard. The applicant argued that he had a right to liberty and that exceptional circumstances were present, including his ongoing employment and commitment to rehabilitation. However, the court found that Pollard's criminal history, including multiple breaches of community correction orders, indicated a lack of respect for the law and an unacceptable risk to the community. The court concluded that exceptional circumstances had not been established, and that there was an unacceptable risk in any event.

The court refused Pollard's bail application, citing the provisions of the Bail Act 1977, including sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4A, 4D, and 4E. The court determined that Pollard's criminal history, coupled with the nature of the current charges, presented a significant risk to the community, and that exceptional circumstances had not been demonstrated. Consequently, Pollard was to remain in custody until the hearing of the charges, which was expected to take nine to twelve months.

Orders