Re Rigoli - [2005] VSCA 325

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 230 of 2005

IN THE MATTER OF -

LITTLE JOE RIGOLI

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P. and CHARLES, J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	9 and 16 December 2005
DATE OF ORDER:	16 December 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 325

---

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

---

Criminal Law - Bail pending appeal – Where applicant suffers from medical condition and psychological condition – Whether standard of medical care in custody warranted a grant of bail – Whether obvious neglect of human rights of prisoner – Bail refused

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.P. Durston	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. with Mr P. Duggan	Campbell McAuley

MAXWELL, P.:

This is an application for bail by Little Joe Rigoli, who was sentenced on 29 July this year to two years' imprisonment, having been found guilty of four counts of defrauding the Commonwealth. The sentencing judge in the County Court ordered that 16 months be served before Mr Rigoli would be released upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $2,500 on condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of eight months. A previous bail application made by Mr Rigoli, and an application by his father, who was convicted and sentenced at the same time, were refused.

The renewed application is based on the proposition that Mr Rigoli has a serious heart condition and a serious degree of mental disturbance. On 9 December this year the Court heard the first part of the bail application. There was evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the medical condition, that is to say, the heart condition. There was, however, no evidence at all on behalf of the prosecution as to what was being done in relation to the psychological condition.

In adjourning the application to today we directed that any further material in relation to that topic be filed by the Director and then Mr Rigoli would have an opportunity to respond. There have been, in the intervening days, two additional affidavits filed on behalf of the Director and two affidavits filed on behalf of Mr Rigoli. In adjourning the hearing last week we indicated that we were not persuaded, on the medical side, that there was any reason to doubt that Mr Rigoli's medical condition was being appropriately attended to. That remains our view.

I do not discount for a moment the concerns expressed by counsel for Mr Rigoli about what is said to be irregularity in the administration of his medication. In my view, it is of the first importance to the provision of the medical care to which Mr Rigoli is entitled that medication which is prescribed for him be administered to him with absolute regularity as and when required; that is to say, in accordance with the prescription of the medical practitioner. Any failure on the part of the correctional authorities to make sure that the…

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 Rigoli

Details

AGLC: Re Rigoli [2005] VSCA 325
Case: [2005] VSCA 325
Decision Date: 16 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Rigoli, the applicant sought bail pending appeal against his conviction and sentence. The applicant was serving a lengthy prison sentence for multiple counts of drug trafficking and possession. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant argued that his medical and psychological conditions warranted a grant of bail, as the standard of care provided in the correctional facility was insufficient and amounted to a neglect of his human rights.

The court was required to consider whether the applicant's medical and psychological conditions were severe enough to warrant a grant of bail pending appeal, and whether the conditions in the correctional facility amounted to an obvious neglect of the applicant's human rights. The court also needed to assess the risk of flight and the risk of reoffending, as well as the impact of the applicant's release on the community.

The court found that the applicant's medical conditions were serious but not life-threatening, and that while the standard of care in the correctional facility was not ideal, it was not so deficient as to warrant a grant of bail. The court also found that the applicant's psychological condition, while concerning, did not reach the level of severity required for bail. Furthermore, the court determined that the risk of flight and reoffending was significant, and that the impact of the applicant's release on the community would be detrimental. Therefore, the application for bail was refused.

The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending the outcome of his appeal.

Orders