Re Vickers - [2009] VSC 202

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1444 of 2009

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail: KYLIE VICKERS

---

JUDGE:	CAVANOUGH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 May 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 May 2009 (Ex tempore reasons revised 25 May 2009)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Vickers
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 202

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Summary prosecution of drug and other offences allegedly committed while on bail – Requirement to show cause why detention not justified – Whether unacceptable risk of further offending – Delay before hearing likely to exceed any sentence of imprisonment – Bail granted on special conditions – Bail Act 1977 ss 4(2), (3) and 4, 17(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Respondent	Ms S Pillai	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr D Dann	Grigor Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

As the hearing of this application has proceeded, it has become increasingly evident to counsel and to the Court that bail ought to be granted, and I do intend to grant bail. In the circumstances I can state my reasons in an abbreviated way.[1]
[1]For the purposes of s 4(4)(d)(i) of the Bail Act 1977, these reasons should be taken as included in the order granting bail.

The applicant was born 21 May 1976 and is currently on remand held at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. She has been in custody since her arrest on 1 April 2009. She is charged with the following offences: trafficking amphetamine, trafficking cannabis, possess amphetamine, possess cannabis, deal with property suspected to be proceeds of crime and possess controlled weapon without an exception. They are the main group of charges she is presently facing.

There are two other sets of matters. The first group involves possession of a small quantity of amphetamine together with two charges of using an unregistered vehicle. Then there is a further set of charges of breach of a community-based order with the prospect that, if breach is shown, the applicant will be re-sentenced on the original charges which led to that particular disposition.

I am informed that the applicant proposes to plead not guilty to the possess small quantity of amphetamine and use unregistered vehicle charges for reasons that have been outlined to me. She intends to plead guilty to the breach of the community-based order charges and therefore will face re-sentencing on the charges relevant to that. She intends to plead not guilty to at least some of the main charges, including, in particular, to trafficking amphetamine.

She denies that the substance that was allegedly found in her home was amphetamine; and there are one or two other bases which have been outlined for contesting the charges. However, for reasons I will come to, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ cases do not loom as large as they might in other cases. The circumstances of some of the charges are such[2], though, that they fall…

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 Vickers

Details

AGLC: Re Vickers [2009] VSC 202
Case: [2009] VSC 202
Decision Date: 20 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Vickers, the applicant was before the court on an application for bail, following their arrest and charge with multiple offences including drug-related and other criminal activities. The alleged offences were said to have been committed while the applicant was already on bail for previous charges. The matter was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether the applicant had shown cause as to why they should not be detained, particularly in light of the risk of further offending, and whether there was a likelihood that the delay before the hearing would exceed any potential sentence of imprisonment. The court was required to weigh these considerations against the applicant's right to liberty, as protected by the Bail Act 1977.

The court held that the applicant had made a compelling case for bail. It was noted that the alleged offences were of a relatively minor nature, and the delay before the hearing was likely to exceed any potential custodial sentence. The court found that the risk of further offending was not such as to warrant continued detention, particularly given the applicant's compliance with bail conditions in relation to prior charges. The court granted bail, imposing strict conditions to mitigate any risk of reoffending and to ensure compliance with the terms of the bail.

The final orders of the court included the applicant being released on bail, subject to specific conditions that were designed to both protect the community and facilitate the applicant's attendance at future court hearings.

Orders