Re Robert Arthur Meade - [2012] VSC 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0001 of 2012

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by ROBERT ARTHUR MEADE

---

JUDGE:	ALMOND J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 January 2012
DATE OF RULING:	27 January 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Robert Arthur Meade
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 11	Amended 30 January 2012

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charge of murder – Whether exceptional circumstances exist – Family situation – Potential delay - Strength of the Crown case – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D. Gurvich	Slades & Parsons Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr R. Gibson	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 13 September 2011, the applicant Robert Arthur Meade was arrested and charged with the murder of his former wife Sally Brooks. He was remanded in custody on that day and is presently held at the Melbourne Remand Centre. The applicant has not previously made an application for bail.

The general rule that a person accused of an offence and being held in custody in relation to that offence shall be granted bail does not apply in the case of a person charged with murder.[1]
[1]Bail Act 1977 ss 4(1) and 4(2)(a).

Bail shall not be granted to a person charged with murder unless the Court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the making of such an order.[2] If the applicant is able to establish that exceptional circumstances exist, the Court should grant bail unless it is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk.[3]
[2]Bail Act 1977 s 13(2)(b).
[3]Bail Act 1977 s 4(d).

The Crown opposes the application for bail, contending first that the applicant does not establish that exceptional circumstances exist and secondly, that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice if he were granted bail.

Circumstances of the alleged offence

In summary, the Crown case is that on 28 June 2011 the applicant travelled from his home in South Australia to Molesworth in Victoria where he had arranged accommodation for a three night stay at the Molesworth Hotel. The applicant stayed at the hotel on 28, 29 and 30 June 2011.

It is alleged that very early in the morning of 1 July 2011, the applicant left the hotel, drove to the Donvale area, and parked his vehicle near the home of his former wife who resided at 11 Limassol Court, Donvale. While the deceased was absent from the home dropping off children at their primary school and leaving her vehicle at a car repair shop, the applicant entered the Limassol Court property from the rear, gained entry to the house and then waited for the deceased to return home. Some time around 9.10am the deceased returned to 11 Limassol Court and entered the house by…

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 Robert Arthur Meade

Details

AGLC: Re Robert Arthur Meade [2012] VSC 11
Case: [2012] VSC 11
Decision Date: 27 January 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Robert Arthur Meade involved the applicant, Robert Arthur Meade, who was facing a charge of murder and sought bail. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary focus was on whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the granting of bail. The respondent, the Crown, opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant's release would not serve the interests of justice and could potentially jeopardise the investigation or trial.

The court had to determine if there were exceptional circumstances that would justify granting bail to the applicant, considering factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the evidence against the applicant, the potential impact on the community, and the applicant's family situation and ties to the community. The court also had to weigh the risk of flight if the applicant were released on bail against the potential for prejudice to the trial process.

After carefully considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the applicant's release on bail would not be in the interests of justice. The court emphasised the seriousness of the charge, the strength of the Crown's case, and the potential for prejudice if the applicant were released. The court concluded that the exceptional circumstances necessary for granting bail were not present in this case. Consequently, the court refused the application for bail, and the applicant remained in custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for bail will be refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.