Legal Research
Cases
Re Taylor

Re Taylor

Case [2020] VSC 146 27 March 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0029

IN THE MATTER OF the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)
-and-
IN THE MATTER OF an application for bail by SHANNON TAYLOR

---

JUDGE:	Lasry J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	17 & 27 March 2020
DATE OF RULING:	27 March 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Taylor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 146

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail — Charges of trafficking commercial quantity — Committing indictable offence whilst on bail — Whether exceptional circumstances established — Delay caused by COVID-19 pandemic — Exceptional circumstances established — Risk cannot be reduced by bail conditions — Application refused— Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms L Ristivojevic	Sarah Pratt & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms D Karamicov	Office of Public Prosecution

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Shannon Taylor (the ‘applicant’).

On 24 October 2019, Senior Constable Ashley Riley (the ‘informant’) charged the applicant with trafficking a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, possessing a firearm as a prohibited person, negligently dealing with proceeds of crime, possessing a drug of dependence, and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. All offences are alleged to have occurred the day before.

The informant also charged him with handling stolen goods, possessing ammunition without a licence, and possessing a dangerous article, but these charges were not filed until 12 December 2019.

As the applicant is accused of committing a Schedule 1 offence under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’), namely, trafficking a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, the parties are agreed that bail must be refused unless the Court is satisfied exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[1]
[1]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 4AA (‘Bail Act’).

Procedural history

The applicant has been in custody since his arrest on 23 October 2019. He applied for a grant of bail from the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 11 December 2019. The application was refused on the grounds that he failed to show a compelling reason and there was an unacceptable risk that he would endanger the safety or welfare of any person, or fail to surrender into custody in accordance with conditions of bail.

The matter was initially listed for committal mention on 24 January 2020 but was adjourned until 19 May 2020 as forensic analysis of the suspected drugs and firearm remained outstanding. A summary of the DNA results was provided by the respondent on 17 March 2020, but it was estimated that the drug and ballistic results will not be available until April.

Due to the present state of emergency caused by the COVID-19 outbreak, the mention listed for 19 May 2020 may not proceed, and there is little prospect of a contested committal occurring in the near future.

At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail and summons in relation to…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: Re Taylor [2020] VSC 146
Case: [2020] VSC 146
Decision Date: 27 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re Taylor came before the County Court of Victoria, where the respondent was seeking bail in relation to charges of trafficking a commercial quantity of a controlled substance. The applicant, who was already on bail for another indictable offence, faced allegations of committing further indictable offences while on bail. The court had to determine whether exceptional circumstances existed that warranted the granting of bail, despite the applicant's failure to comply with bail conditions set for a previous charge. The case also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the applicant's ability to comply with the bail conditions and whether this constituted exceptional circumstances.

The central legal issues were whether the delay in the proceedings, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, constituted exceptional circumstances under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). Additionally, the court had to assess whether the risk posed by the applicant could be mitigated by specific bail conditions. The court examined the provisions of the Bail Act, including sections 1B, 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, and 5AAAA, to determine if the exceptional circumstances justified granting bail. The court found that the delay caused by the pandemic did not sufficiently mitigate the risk posed by the applicant, and therefore, bail was refused.

The County Court of Victoria held that the COVID-19 pandemic delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances as the applicant's risk could not be sufficiently reduced by any bail conditions. The court reasoned that the delay, while a factor, did not change the fundamental risk assessment of the applicant. The court was also mindful of the need to ensure public safety and prevent the applicant from engaging in further criminal activities. The applicant's history of breaching bail conditions further supported the decision to refuse bail.

The court ultimately decided that the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant bail were not established. The delay caused by the pandemic, while a consideration, did not outweigh the risk posed by the applicant. Therefore, the application for bail was refused.

Orders