Re Tilley - [2024] VSC 274

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0085

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by SARAH TILLEY

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 May 2024
DATE OF RULING:	15 May 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Tilley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 274

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charge of murder – Schedule 1 offence – Requirement to show exceptional circumstances – Nature and seriousness of alleged offending – Strength of prosecution case – No criminal history – No history of failure to comply with bail conditions – Availability of stable accommodation – Availability of full time employment – Availability of bail support service – Bail guarantee – Exceptional circumstances established – Applicant not an unacceptable risk – Bail granted – Application of rules of evidence – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAA, 8 – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 4, 75.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	C Farrington	Radovic Lawyers
For the respondent	E Dane (solicitor)	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

On 4 February 2024, Sarah Monique Tilley (“Tilley”) was charged with the murder of Sergio Andres Cuesta Posada (“Cuesta Posada”). The murder is alleged to have occurred at Chelsea Heights in Victoria on 16 September 2023.
Tilly is currently on remand and has applied for bail for the first time.
In support of her application, Tilley relied on a number of factors to establish the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail. These included issues with the prosecution case, her youth and lack of criminal history, the availability of stable accommodation and full time employment, and the offer of a bail guarantee. The application for bail was opposed by the prosecution on the basis that exceptional circumstances had not been established, but that in any event, Tilley would present an unacceptable risk if she were to be released on bail.
For the reasons to follow, Tilley’s application for bail is granted.

B. Background

B.1 Alleged offending

Tilley’s co-accused are Jared Stuart Baker (“Baker”), Michael Jeffrey Frankland (“Frankland”) and her intimate partner Hubba Able Stanley Paul (“Paul”).
The following account is based on the prosecution case and comprises allegations only.
It is alleged that in early September 2023, Cuesta Posada committed a burglary at Tilley and Paul’s home in Queensland, and that he was murdered in retaliation. A gold chain valued at $150,000 and sets of car keys were reported stolen. However, police believe that illicit drugs, not personal items, were stolen from Tilley and Paul. In addition, Cuesta Posada allegedly owed Paul and Frankland large drug debts.
On the morning of 16 September 2023, at approximately 9.40, Tilley was captured on closed-circuit television arriving at Brisbane Airport by car and stopping temporarily in the drop-off area of the domestic terminal.
Baker and Paul were also captured…

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 Tilley

Details

AGLC: Re Tilley [2024] VSC 274
Case: [2024] VSC 274
Decision Date: 15 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Tilley, the applicant sought bail on a charge of murder, a Schedule 1 offence, which necessitated demonstrating exceptional circumstances for bail to be granted. The application was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the stringent criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), particularly given the gravity of the offence and the potential for flight risk or interference with witnesses. The applicant's lack of criminal history, history of compliance with bail conditions, availability of stable accommodation, and potential employment were considered in light of the need to prevent serious crime and ensure the safety of the community.

The court carefully evaluated the evidence presented, applying the principles set out in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) and the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). It examined the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, the strength of the prosecution's case, and the applicant's personal circumstances. The court noted that the applicant had no criminal history, had not failed to comply with bail conditions in the past, had stable accommodation, and had the potential for full-time employment. Additionally, the applicant had access to a bail support service and could provide a bail guarantee. The court concluded that these factors, combined with the exceptional circumstances presented, meant that the applicant did not pose an unacceptable risk to the community and that granting bail would not undermine the administration of justice.

After weighing all the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles, the court found that the exceptional circumstances had been established. It determined that the applicant was not an unacceptable risk to the community and that granting bail would not result in the commission of further offences. Consequently, the application for bail was successful. The court ordered that the applicant be released on bail subject to specified conditions, including regular reporting to a bail supervisor and a curfew. The decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors when determining whether to grant bail in cases involving serious offences.

Orders