Taylor vs DPP - [2020] VSCA 142

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0087

SHANNON TAYLOR	Appellant
v
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, T FORREST and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 May 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 142
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Re Taylor [2020] VSC 146 (Lasry J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Appeal – Schedule 1 offence – Trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence – Judge satisfied exceptional circumstances established – Judge concluded appellant was unacceptable risk – Whether judge erred in concluding no conditions could ameliorate risk – Decision open – Appeal dismissed – Bail Act 1977, ss 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr M Gumbleton	Sarah Pratt & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr D Glynn	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
T FORREST JA
WEINBERG JA:

Introduction

On 24 October 2019, the appellant, Shannon Taylor, was charged with a number of offences, including trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, methylamphetamine;[1] being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm;[2] negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime;[3] possessing a drug of dependence;[4] and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail,[5] all offences allegedly having been committed the previous day.[6] For the purposes of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence is a Schedule 1 offence; so that, by virtue of s 4AA, bail must be refused unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.
[1]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s 71AA(1).
[2]Firearms Act1996, s 5(1).
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 194(4).
[4]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s 73(1).
[5]Bail Act 1977, s 30B.
[6]Later, on 12 December 2019, the informant also charged the appellant with handling stolen goods, possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence and possessing a dangerous article.

Lasry J refused the appellant bail on 27 March 2020.[7] Although he was satisfied ‘that exceptional circumstances have been established, primarily on the basis of the inordinate delay that will occur, along with the impact that COVID-19 is likely to have on the prison population’,[8] the judge nonetheless refused bail because ‘there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant will continue to offend whilst on bail’.[9]
[7]Re Taylor [2020] VSC 146 (‘Reasons’).
[8]Ibid [51].
[9]Ibid [54].

By a Notice dated 26 April 2020,[10] the appellant appeals against the decision to refuse him bail on a ground that contends that the judge erred ‘when he determined that there were no conditions that could be imposed that would ameliorate the risk presented by the appellant on bail to an acceptable level’.
[10]The Notice of Appeal initially named the informant as the respondent. Since the parties agreed that the proper respondent should have been the Director of Public Prosecutions, we…

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 Taylor vs DPP

Details

AGLC: Taylor vs DPP [2020] VSCA 142
Case: [2020] VSCA 142
Decision Date: 4 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taylor was charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, a Schedule 1 offence. He appealed against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had dismissed his application for bail. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which found that the trial judge had not erred in his conclusion that no conditions could ameliorate the risk posed by Taylor. The appellant's appeal was dismissed.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in concluding that no conditions could ameliorate the risk posed by Taylor. The appellant submitted that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the possibility that bail conditions could ameliorate the risk that he posed. The respondent submitted that the trial judge had correctly concluded that no conditions could ameliorate the risk. The High Court found that the trial judge had not erred in his conclusion. The trial judge had considered the possibility that bail conditions could ameliorate the risk, and had concluded that they could not. The High Court found that this conclusion was open to the trial judge, and that the trial judge had not erred in reaching it.

The High Court found that the trial judge had correctly considered the evidence before him, and had properly applied the relevant legal principles. The trial judge had concluded that Taylor posed an unacceptable risk to the community, and that no conditions could ameliorate that risk. The High Court found that this conclusion was open to the trial judge, and that the trial judge had not erred in reaching it. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court made no orders as to costs.

Orders