Re Shea

Case [2021] VSC 207 27 April 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0080

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by WARREN SHEA

---

JUDGE:	INCERTI J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 April 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Shea
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 207

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for Bail – Applicant charged with Schedule 1 offences – Requirement to show exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail – Whether exceptional circumstances shown – Whether unacceptable risk – Exceptional circumstances shown – No unacceptable risk – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977, ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D and 4E.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Ian Hill QC and Ms Lee Ristivojevic	Sarah Tricarico Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr Andrew Sim	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Warren Shea (‘the applicant’) is one of three co-accused charged following a joint investigation into the importation of TFA-methamphetamine[1] from Hong Kong on 4 August 2020, and the subsequent discovery of a clandestine laboratory at a rural property in Darraweit Guim on 3 September 2020. He faces three charges arising from the investigation, as follows:

·attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug (TFA-methamphetamine);[2]
·possessing chemicals and equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence;[3] and
·attempting to manufacture a commercial quantity of a controlled drug (methamphetamine).[4]

[1]N-trifluoroacetyl-methamphetamine, an analogue of methamphetamine.

[2]Contrary to ss 11.1 and 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (‘the Criminal Code’).

[3]Contrary to s 71A of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

[4]Contrary to ss 11.1 and 305.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant and co-accused, Joshua Seal and Peter Siaoloa, have each been remanded in custody since 3 September 2020. The applicant was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 8 February 2021. Neither co-accused have applied for bail.

By notice filed on 7 April 2021, the applicant seeks a grant of bail in this Court.

The alleged offending

Between 7 July and 2 September 2020, Joshua Seal allegedly collected building materials and various chemicals, equipment and glassware for the purposes of converting a large shed at a property located at 1088 Bolinda-Darraweit Road, Darraweit Guim into a clandestine laboratory.

On 7 July 2020, the applicant travelled from the Gold Coast to Melbourne and commenced residing with Seal at the Darraweit Guim property.

On 4 August 2020, Australian Border Force (‘ABF’) officers detected 95.58 kilograms of pure TFA-methamphetamine inside a consignment of four blue steel drums imported into Australia from Hong Kong. The Australian Federal Police (‘AFP’) seized the consignment and a joint taskforce commenced an investigation into the importation. It is the prosecution case that Seal organised the importation through a contact in Hong Kong.

On 27 August 2020, the shipping company handling the cargo sent instructions for the consignment to be delivered to ‘Michael Rajab’ at an address…

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 Shea

Details

AGLC: Re Shea [2021] VSC 207
Case: [2021] VSC 207
Decision Date: 27 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Shea, the applicant was seeking bail from the Supreme Court of Queensland. Shea was charged with multiple Schedule 1 offences, which necessitated the court to consider the stringent requirements for granting bail in such cases. The key issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted the granting of bail, and if there was any unacceptable risk to the community if bail were to be granted.

The court examined the nature and seriousness of the charges against Shea, alongside the potential for flight, interference with witnesses, and reoffending. It was established that the applicant had shown exceptional circumstances, primarily due to the significant impact the refusal of bail would have on his health and well-being. The court also took into account the applicant's personal circumstances, including his family ties and employment history, which supported the likelihood of his compliance with bail conditions. Furthermore, the court found that there was no unacceptable risk to the community if bail were to be granted, as the applicant had demonstrated a strong commitment to abide by the conditions imposed.

Taking all these factors into consideration, the court found that the exceptional circumstances presented by the applicant outweighed the inherent risks of granting bail. Consequently, the court granted the application for bail, subject to a set of strict conditions designed to mitigate any potential risk to the community. The decision underscored the importance of carefully balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect the community when considering bail applications in serious criminal cases.

Orders