Re Richardson - [2020] VSC 289

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2020 0103

IN THE MATTER OF THE Bail Act 1977 (Vic)
and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL BY JARROD RICHARDSON

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 May 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Richardson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 289

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for Bail – Accused charged with 19 offences including intentionally causing injury, assault with a weapon, aggravated burglary, stalking, attempting to pervert the course of justice and harassing a witness – Accused has significant criminal history – Whether accused can demonstrate a compelling reason that justifies the grant of bail – Whether accused is an unacceptable risk – Delay and impact of COVID-19 pandemic – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms J Willard	Michael J Gleeson & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr N Hutton	Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Jarrod Richardson applies for bail.

He has been in custody since 27 June 2019, when he was arrested and charged by two different informants in respect of two suites of alleged offending, comprising 19 charges in total.

Detective Senior Constable Paul Woods preferred 17 charges relating to the period 1 March and 26 June 2019. They are:

· Intentionally causing serious injury;

· Recklessly causing injury;

· Theft (9 charges);

· Assault with a weapon;

· Robbery;

· Aggravated burglary – person present;

· Extortion with threat to kill;

· Burglary;

· Stalking.

Detective Senior Constable Ian Brown preferred 2 charges alleged to have been committed on 13 May 2019. They are:

· Attempting to pervert the course of justice; and

· Harassing a witness.

The applicant has applied for and been refused bail in the Magistrates’ Court three times: on 28 October 2019, 30 January 2020 and 20 April 2020. On each occasion the applicant has been found to be an unacceptable risk of (at least) the majority of the factors delineated in s 4E(1)(a) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (Act). On the first and last occasion, a magistrate was not persuaded that the applicant had demonstrated a compelling reason justifying the grant of bail.

The committal hearing of the charges has been twice delayed. On 16 December 2019 the matter was relisted for 18 May 2020 as, for reasons unknown, no magistrate was available to hear the committal. On the latter date, the matter was adjourned to 7 December 2020 due to the operational restrictions of the Magistrates’ Court in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

General Bail Principles

The applicant falls within the ‘shows compelling reason’ category.[1] He bears the burden of satisfying the Court as to the existence of a compelling reason that justifies the grant of bail. In considering whether a compelling reason exists, I must take into account all of the ‘surrounding circumstances’ as defined in s 3AAA of the Act. For the applicant…

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 Richardson

Details

AGLC: Re Richardson [2020] VSC 289
Case: [2020] VSC 289
Decision Date: 22 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Richardson involved the accused, Richardson, who was applying for bail while facing 19 charges including intentionally causing injury, assault with a weapon, aggravated burglary, stalking, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and harassing a witness. The court was required to assess whether Richardson could demonstrate a compelling reason that justified the grant of bail, considering his significant criminal history, and whether he was an unacceptable risk to the community.

The legal issues at the forefront of this case centred on the principles of bail law, particularly the balance between the presumption of innocence and the need to protect the community from potential harm. The court had to weigh the severity and nature of the charges against Richardson, his criminal history, and the risk he posed to the community and witnesses if released on bail. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the community and the justice system also factored into the decision-making process.

The court found that Richardson's extensive criminal history and the gravity of the current charges posed a significant risk to the community. The court concluded that there was no compelling reason to grant bail that would adequately mitigate this risk. Additionally, the court considered the delay caused by the pandemic and the potential impact on the administration of justice, which further influenced the decision to refuse bail. Ultimately, the court was not satisfied that the accused could be released on bail without undue risk to the community.

The final orders of the court were that Richardson's application for bail was refused, and he was to remain in custody pending the outcome of his trial.

Orders