Re Sean Jason Sonnet - [2011] VSC 114

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1443 of 2005

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)
and
IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by SEAN JASON SONNET

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 March 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 March 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Sean Jason Sonnet
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 114

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Conspiracy to Murder – Re-trial after successful appeal - Show cause – Four and half years in custody as a remand prisoner.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G. Meredith	Marich Legal Pty Ltd
For the Defendant	Mr B. Kissane	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Sean Jason Sonnet (“the applicant”). The applicant was charged with conspiracy to murder Mario Condello, pursuant to s 321(1) of the Crimes Act1958. Section 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act 1977 requires in this situation that the applicant show cause as to why his detention in custody is not justified, in order for me to grant him bail.

The applicant was arrested and charged on 9 June 2004. The Crown alleges that he and his accomplice Gregg Hilderbrandt were, at that time, on the verge of putting their agreement with Carl Williams and Michael Thorneycroft to murder Mario Condello into effect, although if anyone was shot on that day it would not have been Condello because he was not in the vicinity of East Brighton as they allegedly believed he was. The evidence indicates that the police were listening to their conversations and watching their movements and, as a result, Sonnet and Hildebrandt were arrested by the Victorian Police Special Operations Group shortly before anyone risked being mistakenly shot.

The applicant was originally charged with Conspiracy to Murder Mario Condello, Theft, Prohibited Possession of a Firearm and Possession of Ammunition and was remanded in custody. A bail application was made to this Court in June 2005 before Bongiorno J but his Honour refused the application. I have not had the benefit of reading those reasons. Committal proceedings were also held in 2005. The applicant’s trial was held in this Court before King J between 13 August 2007 and 26 September 2007. The applicant gave evidence on his trial admitting that it was his voice that could be heard on the various electronic devices but suggesting that his participation was a sham, and that he lacked any intention to actually commit the murder that he was alleged to have agreed to commit. He was found guilty by the jury.

King J sentenced the applicant on 29 May 2008 to 20 years imprisonment on the count of conspiracy to murder, two years on the count of theft of a vehicle, two years and six months on the firearms charges, and 20 penalty units on the possession of firearm cartridges. All sentences were to be served concurrently…

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 Sean Jason Sonnet

Details

AGLC: Re Sean Jason Sonnet [2011] VSC 114
Case: [2011] VSC 114
Decision Date: 30 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Re Sean Jason Sonnet involved an application for bail following a successful appeal against a conviction for conspiracy to murder. The respondent, Sonnet, had been in custody for four and a half years as a remand prisoner and sought bail pending the re-trial. The primary focus of the court was to determine the appropriate conditions for bail, if any, that would be suitable in light of the serious nature of the offence and the substantial time already spent in custody.

The legal issues before the court included the principles of balancing the presumption of innocence with the need to protect the community, the gravity of the alleged offence, and the duration of pre-trial detention. The court needed to assess whether Sonnet posed a significant flight risk, a risk of re-offending, or a threat to the community. Additionally, it was necessary to consider the impact of prolonged detention on the respondent’s right to a fair trial and his overall well-being.

The court weighed the seriousness of the offence against the principles of natural justice and the rights of the accused. It acknowledged the respondent's long period in custody but emphasised the gravity of the charges and the potential risk to public safety. The court ultimately decided that the appropriate conditions for bail would need to be stringent, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community. The respondent was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure his appearance at the re-trial and to mitigate any risk to public safety.

The final orders included specific bail conditions that Sonnet must adhere to, ensuring his availability for the re-trial and limiting his interactions with potential co-conspirators or witnesses. The court also mandated regular reporting to a supervising officer and restricted his movements to certain locations. These conditions were designed to uphold the interests of justice while respecting the rights of the respondent.

Orders