Re Richardson - [2013] VSC 367

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0104 of 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by JAMES MICHAEL RICHARDSON

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 July 2013
DATE OF RULING:	18 July 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Richardson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 367

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Possession of unregistered firearms – Possession of drug of dependence – Trafficking drug of dependence – Show Cause – Indictable offence while on bail for Indictable Offence – Delay – Bail granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M. L. Hartnett
For the Accused	Mr D. Brown

HIS HONOUR:

On 20 March 2013, the applicant was charged with 11 offences involving his use of a category E long arm firearm, a rifle. In short, it is alleged that the applicant, whilst intoxicated, fired into what he may have thought was vacant bushland but which, in fact, was a designated camping area.

It is further alleged that the category E firearm was not registered, nor was the applicant licensed to own such a firearm. The firearm is said to be unnumbered. Ten of the charges relate to this incident and the circumstances that surround it; six of the charges are indictable but capable of summary trial. The other charge relates to possession of a small quantity of crystal methylamphetamine.

The applicant was bailed on his own undertaking from the Narre Warren police station and, as I understand it, the matter is listed for contest mention at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 27 August 2013. This bail remains in place.

On 20 May 2013, police executed a search warrant on the applicant's Endeavour Hills house. Police seized the following items:

(a) A sawn-off, side by side, ‘Mugila Eibar’ shotgun;

(b) A .22 calibre pump action rifle;

(c) An army model M-1911 A1-67 auto-loading, .45 calibre pistol;

(d) 2 x .22 calibre pen pistols;

(e) An imitation silver coloured semi-automatic pistol, body only;

(f) An imitation black and silver ‘Gap’ 9mm semi automatic pistol;

(g) An imitation black and silver coloured ‘Denix’ revolver;

(h) The stocks of 2 long-arms and the barrels;

(i) A large quantity of ammunition;

(j) A home made ‘Taser’;

(k) A knuckle-duster;

(l) 35 Ecstasy tablets;

(m) Amphetamine in 9 separate ‘deal’ bags having a total weight of 25 grams;and

(n) A quantity of empty deal bags, electronic scales and documents pertaining to drug trafficking.

The prosecution allege that the accused was not authorized under the Firearms Act to possess or carry firearms as at 20 May 2013. All the firearms found were unregistered, bar the 22 pump‑action rifle which had been stolen between two and three weeks earlier from a Wonthaggi rural property.

Approximately 1454 grams of iodine was seized. Iodine is listed as a precursor chemical under schedule one of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Regulations

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 [2013] VSC 367
Case: [2013] VSC 367
Decision Date: 18 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application for bail by an individual named Richardson. Richardson was facing charges including possession of unregistered firearms, possession of a drug of dependence, and trafficking in a drug of dependence. The application was made in the context of Richardson already being on bail for another indictable offence. The court had to consider whether Richardson should continue to be granted bail in light of these new charges. The court needed to weigh the seriousness of the new offences against any arguments in favour of bail and the risk of flight if released.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the new charges constituted a sufficient ground to revoke or refuse bail, and if not, whether Richardson met the criteria for continued bail. The court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the new charges, the risk that Richardson might commit further offences while on bail, and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that should be taken into account. The court also had to consider the delay in bringing the charges and how this might affect the fairness of the proceedings.

In assessing these issues, the court found that the new charges, while serious, did not necessarily warrant a revocation of bail. The court noted that Richardson had a history of complying with bail conditions and had not shown any propensity to commit further offences. The court also considered the delay in bringing the charges but found that it did not prejudice Richardson's ability to mount a fair defence. Ultimately, the court decided that the interests of justice were best served by continuing to grant bail, provided that Richardson complied with stringent bail conditions. The court set out specific conditions to ensure that Richardson would not reoffend while on bail.

The court granted bail with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring, a curfew, and regular check-ins with a bail supervisor. Richardson was required to surrender any firearms and to abstain from drug use. These conditions were designed to ensure that Richardson would not pose a risk to the community and would appear for any future court hearings.

Orders