Re Scott

[2021] VSC 818

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0333

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by CRAIG SCOTT

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 December 2021
DATE OF RULING:	8 December 2021 (delivered ex tempore, revised 8 December 2021)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Scott
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 818

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence to be withdrawn – Remaining charges able to be dealt with in summary stream – Exceptional circumstances made out – Applicant does not present an unacceptable risk of reoffending or not complying with conditions of bail – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 3AAA, 4A, 4E; Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 ss 71AA(1), 73, Control of Weapons Act 1990 s 5AA, Firearms Act 1996 s 124(1), Crimes Act 1958 s 194(2).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C T Farrington	Sarah Pratt & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms S Clancy	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

1. On 7 November 2021, police investigating an unrelated matter attended at the applicant’s house in Wendouree, a suburb of Ballarat.  As a consequence of a search of those premises, the applicant was charged with six offences:  trafficking in a commercial quantity of methamphetamine[1] (charge 1);  possession of a small quantity of methamphetamine[2] (charge 2);  possession of a small quantity of cannabis[3] (charge 3);  possession of a prohibited weapon (a crossbow) without an exemption or approval[4] (charge 4);  possession of ammunition without a licence (two rounds)[5] (charge 5);  and, finally, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime ($73, 850 found in a car in a locked shed on the premises)[6] (charge 6).

   [1]Contrary to Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 71AA(1).

   [2]Contrary to ibid s 73(1).

   [3]Contrary to ibid.

   [4]Contrary to Control of Weapons Act 1990 s 5AA.

   [5]Contrary to Firearms Act 1996 s 124(1).

   [6]Contrary to Crimes Act 1958 s 194(2).

1. The applicant has been on remand since 7 November, when he was arrested and charged.  He was refused bail in the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court on 8 November on the basis that he had failed to show exceptional circumstances.  The matter is next listed in the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court on 20 January 2022 for committal mention.  Although, for reasons that will become apparent, it seems this case will proceed in the summary stream.

The alleged offending

1. I shall summarise the alleged offending very briefly.  At 9:30 pm on 7 November, the police attended at the applicant’s residence to arrest another male for unrelated matters.  They saw a small amount of methamphetamine in a bedroom.  The applicant claimed ownership and was arrested and taken to Ballarat Police Station.  Police then searched the property and found two large blocks of a crystalline substance in the toilet bowl.  It was not inside any packaging, and it appeared that someone had recently attempted to flush the toilet.

1. Police seized $73,850 in cash from a car in a locked shed at the rear of the property.  Ziplock bags containing cannabis, methamphetamine and Xanax were also seized.  A crossbow was seized along with various rounds of ammunition, phones, cameras, a hard drive and a safe.  The applicant’s partner, Kandice Smith, was then arrested and taken to a police station.

This application

1. Until recently, this application was opposed, and the applicant’s prospects, I have to say, looked forlorn.  Charge 1 involved what was thought to be a commercial quantity of methamphetamine.  Two large blocks of a crystalline substance weighing 355 grams were found in the recently flushed toilet at the premises.

1. In his interview with police, the applicant made admissions to the small quantities of methamphetamine and cannabis found.  He claimed ownership of the crossbow and the money found in the car.  In relation to the crystalline substance, the applicant told police, inelegantly, that what he had put in the toilet were ‘menthol fucking shit wax meltos or whatever they are, oil burners, because the toilet stinks’.

1. Astonishingly, it seems that this was a truthful answer — the crystalline substance was apparently neither methamphetamine nor any other drug of dependence, and charge 1 is to be withdrawn.  It is, apparently, some form of bathroom hygiene product.

1. From the Court’s perspective and, obviously, from the respondent’s perspective, the landscape of this bail application changed dramatically upon this news, which was received yesterday afternoon.  As I have said, charge 1 will be withdrawn, and the other charges are likely to be dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court.

1. The respondent, very sensibly in my view, no longer opposes bail given the delays that will accompany the further progress of this matter and the likelihood that the applicant would be confined for a lengthy period before any ultimate disposition. 

1. I have formed the view that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated, and, despite the applicant’s unimpressive prior history, I have concluded that the risk of flight is low, the risk of the applicant not surrendering himself into custody is reasonably high, and the risk of his committing further offences is high.  However, I have concluded that the imposition of reasonably stringent conditions along the lines of those proposed by the respondent to this application are sufficient to ameliorate the risk to an acceptable level.

1. The respondent submits, and the applicant accepts, that reasonably strict conditions must be imposed.  This is appropriate in the circumstances, particularly given the applicant’s prior criminal history, which includes numerous drug trafficking offences, numerous offences against the Bail Act 1977, and also offences for dealing with what were suspected to be the proceeds of crime.  In the circumstances, the 30-year-old applicant will be granted bail on his own undertaking with the following special conditions:

(1)       That he attend the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court on 20 January 2022 and then surrender himself and must not depart without the leave of the Court, and, if leave is given, return at the time specified by the Court and again surrender himself into custody.

(2)       That he resides at the nominated address in Wendouree, Victoria (‘the premises’), and not change that address without the leave of the Court.

(3)       That he remain at the premises between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am (‘the curfew hours’) each day for the duration of bail.

(4)       That he present himself at the front door of the premises during those curfew hours if and when called upon by a member of Victoria Police to do so.

(5)       That he report each Monday, Wednesday and Friday to the officer in charge of Ballarat Central Police Station, or his or her nominee, between the hours of 9:00 am and 9:00 pm.

(6)       That he report to Ballarat Central Police Station within two working days after this order coming into force.

---