Re Pope - [2022] VSC 735

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0288

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by JORDAN POPE

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 November 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 November 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Pope
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 735

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant charged with Schedule 1 offences of trafficking not less than a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and cocaine – Whether exceptional circumstances justifying grant of bail – Whether unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977, s 3AAA, s 4A, s 4AA, s 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Battersby	Theo Magazis & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr M Fisher	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Jordan Pope (‘the applicant’), aged 41, seeks bail from this Court.[1] As formulated in the notice of application for bail, the ground upon which he seeks bail is:

There are ‘exceptional circumstances’ by virtue of the delay to trial and other matters contained in the affidavit of [the applicant’s solicitor].

[1]Due to the applicant’s failure to demonstrate that there were exceptional circumstances justifying a grant of bail, a magistrate refused him bail on 30 September 2022.

The applicant is charged with:

· trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (three charges — charge 1, methylamphetamine; charge 2, cocaine; and charge 6, pseudoephedrine);

· dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, being $412,690 cash (charge 3);

· being a prohibited person in possession of an imitation firearm (charge 4);

· committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (charge 5); and

· possessing pseudoephedrine (charge 7).

In my opinion, bail should be refused. My reasons follow.

The statutory regime

Since the applicant is charged with Schedule 1 offences within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), this Court must refuse bail unless the applicant can satisfy this Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must take into account the relevant ‘surrounding circumstances’, including, but not limited to, those prescribed in s 3AAA(1) of the Act.

Although the Act does not define exceptional circumstances, guidance may be derived from what Beach JA observed in Re Sam:[2]

The Bail Act does not define what are exceptional circumstances. It is trite that, in order to be exceptional, the circumstances relied upon must be such as to take the case out of the normal so as to justify the admission of the applicant to bail, notwithstanding the very serious nature of the charge against her.[3] Exceptional circumstances may, in an appropriate case, consist of a combination of a number of circumstances relating both to the strength of the prosecution case against the applicant and the personal circumstances of the applicant.[4]

[2]Re Sam [2017]…

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 Pope

Details

AGLC: Re Pope [2022] VSC 735
Case: [2022] VSC 735
Decision Date: 29 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Pope, sought bail in relation to charges of trafficking large quantities of methylamphetamine and cocaine, offences categorised under Schedule 1. The matter was heard by the court which had to determine the appropriate conditions for bail, if any, considering the serious nature of the charges. The legal issues central to the court's decision were whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify the grant of bail, and whether there was an unacceptable risk to the community if bail were granted. The court examined these issues in the context of the Bail Act 1977, specifically sections 3AAA, 4A, 4AA, and 4E.

The court assessed the seriousness of the charges, the likelihood of the applicant appearing in court if granted bail, and the potential risk to the community. It found that the applicant's alleged involvement in trafficking significant quantities of dangerous substances indicated a high risk of reoffending. The court also considered the potential for the applicant to influence witnesses or otherwise interfere with the investigation if released on bail. Given these factors, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances were not present and that there was an unacceptable risk to the community. Consequently, the application for bail was refused.

In summary, the court found that the serious nature of the charges and the risk of reoffending and community harm outweighed any potential for the applicant to be granted bail. The court's decision was grounded in a careful assessment of the statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the case, leading to the refusal of the bail application.

Orders