Turner v Lill (No 2) - [2021] VSC 255

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0092

IN THE MATTER of applications for bail and variation of bail
Between:
KANE TURNER (aka JUSTIN WILLIAMS)	Applicant
-and-
LEADING SENIOR CONSTABLE KEITH LILL	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 May 2021
DATE OF ORDERS:	4 May 2021
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REASONS:	14 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Turner v Lill (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 255

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Applications for bail and to vary existing bail — Applicant bailed on dishonesty charges to Odyssey House (“OH”) in December 2020 — Three months later, applicant told police he was leaving for new address — Police advised must be approved first — Applicant left before address approved but later handed himself in to police — Charged with breaching conduct condition of bail by leaving OH — Denied bail in Magistrates’ Court — Whether exceptional circumstances justifying bail — Whether unacceptable risk of offending or failing to appear, if bailed — Whether charge misconceived — Whether condition to reside at OH is a “conduct condition to attend and participate in bail support services” — Whether OH’s support for applicant’s discharge is a defence — Applicant spent 62 days on remand — Maximum penalty for offence charged is three months’ gaol yet five months’ delay between arrest and hearing of charge — Applicant recommended for Court Integrated Services Program — Applicant’s parents offered accommodation and support — Bail and variation ultimately unopposed — Charge foredoomed to failure — Exceptional circumstances established — No unacceptable risk of offending or failing to appear, if bailed — Bail granted, on conditions — Existing bail varied to same conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D & 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A Patton	Criminal Lawyers Geelong
For the Respondent	Mr M Sontag	Victoria Police, Legal Practice Group

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

On 4 May 2021, I granted an application by Kane Turner[1] for bail on a charge that he breached a condition of a previous bail I had fixed last year. At the same time, I granted his application to vary the order for bail that he was alleged to have breached. I gave detailed ex tempore reasons for those decisions, but said that I would publish written reasons at a later time. These are those reasons.[2]

Background

[1]Mr Turner is also known as Justin Williams.

[2]This judgment should be read with my earlier judgment concerning the existing grant of bail (see Turner v Lill [2020] VSC 812).

Previous charges and bail

On 18 September 2020, Mr Turner was arrested and charged with numerous dishonesty offences, including using counterfeit money, and some driving and bail offences. He also faced, and still faces, other outstanding charges of a similar nature.

On 30 November 2020, I heard Mr Turner’s application for bail. In his twenties, Mr Turner led a relatively conventional life,…

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 Turner v Lill (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Turner v Lill (No 2) [2021] VSC 255
Case: [2021] VSC 255
Decision Date: 14 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Turner v Lill (No 2), the applicant, Mr Turner, sought bail and a variation of his existing bail conditions, after being denied bail in the Magistrates’ Court on charges of breaching the conduct condition of his bail by leaving Odyssey House, a residential facility. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the applicant was represented by Mr J. M. Jones QC, instructed by the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria. The respondent was represented by Ms L. M. Thompson, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify bail, whether there was an unacceptable risk of Mr Turner offending or failing to appear if granted bail, whether the charge was misconceived, and whether the condition to reside at Odyssey House was a conduct condition to attend and participate in bail support services. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Odyssey House’s support for Mr Turner’s discharge was a defence.

The Supreme Court found that exceptional circumstances justified granting bail. The court held that the charge was misconceived and that the condition to reside at Odyssey House was not a conduct condition to attend and participate in bail support services. The court also determined that Odyssey House’s support for Mr Turner’s discharge was a defence. The court found that there was no unacceptable risk of Mr Turner offending or failing to appear if granted bail, given the significant delay between his arrest and the hearing of the charge, and the fact that he had spent 62 days on remand. The court was also satisfied that the applicant’s parents would provide accommodation and support, and that he was recommended for the Court Integrated Services Program.

The court granted bail to Mr Turner, on conditions, and varied his existing bail to the same conditions. The applicant was to reside at the address of his parents, with specified conditions, including electronic monitoring, curfew, and regular check-ins with the Community Corrections Officer. The court also ordered that the charge be dismissed, and that the applicant’s period of remand be taken into account in any future sentencing.

Orders