Re Stratton - [2021] VSC 415

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0155

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Glenn STRATTON

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 July 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 July 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Stratton
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 415

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charge of murder – Fatal gunshot wound to head – Deceased was applicant’s father – Deceased terminally ill – Advanced Care Directive signed by deceased – Deceased sought avenues for voluntary assisted dying – Applicant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying grant of bail – Limited prior criminal history – Exceptional circumstances satisfied – Unacceptable risk not found – Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Gardner	Lakey Legal
For the Respondent	Ms H Baxter	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Glenn Stratton (‘the applicant’) was charged on 24 May 2021 with murder arising from the death of his father, Colin Stratton (‘the deceased’), on the same date by gunshot wound to the head.

By notice filed on 17 June 2021, the applicant applies for bail in this court, having not previously made an application for bail.[1] He has been on remand since 24 May 2021. This is his first time in custody.
[1]Section 13(2) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) provides that only the Supreme Court, or a court on committing the person for trial, may grant bail to a person accused of murder.

Murder is a Schedule 1 offence within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), and as such, the applicant must be refused bail unless he satisfies the court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[2]
[2]The Act ss 4AA(1), 4A(1A), 4A(2).

The matter is next listed on 13 October 2021 at the Bendigo Magistrates’ Court for committal mention.

The alleged offending

The deceased was 81 years of age at the time of his death. The applicant resided with the deceased in Castlemaine, together with other extended family members. The deceased was diagnosed with bowel cancer in October 2019 and had undergone medical treatment, the disease was aggressive, and by the date of his death was regarded as terminal. In the weeks leading up to his death, the deceased’s health had been declining and he was experiencing increased pain.

The deceased had signed an Advanced Care Directive in the presence of a medical practitioner, indicating that he wanted to be able to die on his own terms, and did not want any palliative care. The deceased’s family were aware of his intentions.

On 24 May 2021 at around 8:50am, the deceased attended an appointment with a local doctor for the purpose of requesting what he described as the ‘pill’ to be used for voluntary euthanasia. He indicated an intention to use the ‘pill’ that day. The doctor advised…

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 Stratton

Details

AGLC: Re Stratton [2021] VSC 415
Case: [2021] VSC 415
Decision Date: 8 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Stratton, the applicant, facing a charge of murder, sought bail from the court. The charge stemmed from a fatal gunshot wound to the head of the deceased, who was the applicant's father. The circumstances surrounding the incident were complicated by the fact that the deceased was terminally ill and had signed an Advanced Care Directive. The deceased had also pursued avenues for voluntary assisted dying. The applicant, with a limited prior criminal history, needed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the exceptional circumstances required under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) were present in this case, considering the unique and distressing context of the alleged offence. The court had to balance the seriousness of the charge against the applicant's personal history and the specific circumstances of the case, including the deceased's terminal illness and the Advanced Care Directive.

The court found that the exceptional circumstances were satisfied. It recognised the complexities of the applicant's personal situation and the unique nature of the alleged offence. It concluded that there was no unacceptable risk if bail was granted. Therefore, the application for bail was successful. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the broader context of an alleged offence when assessing the grant of bail.

No additional orders were made.

Orders