Andreevski v The Queen - [2009] VSC 115

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1422 of 2009

No. 1423 of 2009

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by NIKOLA ANDREEVSKI and JOVAN OGRIZOVIC

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 March 2009
DATE OF RULING:	27 March 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Andreevski & Anor v R
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 115

---

Criminal Law – Application for bail – Applicants charged with murder and attempted murder – The Applicants’ limited role in the incident, lack of prior convictions, youth, family support and delay amount to exceptional circumstances – Both Applicants granted bail.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the ApplicantAndreevski	Mr R. Stary	Robert Stary & Associates
For the Applicant Ogrizovic	Ms D. Caruso	Robert Stary & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr D. Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Nikola Andreevski and Jovan Ogrizovic have been charged with the murder of Nathan Roberts-Nunan and the attempted murder of Stephen Thorneycroft at Diggers Rest Recreational Reserve on 8 February 2009. They have also been charged with affray at the same place on the same date.

The applicants were each originally charged with that offence and admitted to bail. Andreevski had been arrested on 8 February 2009 and Ogrizovic was arrested on 10 February 2009. Both of the applicants have admitted going to, and being present, during an affray in which the deceased was killed and Mr Thorneycroft seriously injured.

The applicant Andreevski has denied any direct involvement in the inflicting of any injury but has accepted that he did know that weapons, including knives, had been taken to the fight. The applicant Ogrizovic took a baseball bat with him and used it to strike the deceased, who, he said, was armed with a club lock. I doubt that this could be an occasion of self-defence for either of these young men.

On 12 March 2009 both applicants and others were charged with murder and attempted murder. Their bail on the charge of affray was revoked. They make application to this court for bail.

Andreevski was represented by his solicitor, Mr Robert Stary and Ogrizovic was represented by his solicitor, Ms Diana Caruso. Each of the solicitors had provided an affidavit on behalf of their respective clients. The respondent was represented by Mr Daryl Brown, Crown prosecutor and affidavits sworn by his instructor, Mr Anthony Rooney, were filed. Bail was opposed on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not made out and the informant, Detective Senior Constable Chapman, had expressed concern that each of the applicants would not answer his bail, if it were to be granted.

Pursuant to s 13(2)(b) of the Bail Act 1977 the applicants must each demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist which justify in making an order for bail. In each case the matters relied upon are:

(1) The applicants have no prior convictions;

(2) They come from steady and…

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 Andreevski v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Re Andreevski and Ogrizovic [2009] VSC 115
Case: [2009] VSC 115
Decision Date: 27 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Andreevski v The Queen involved two applicants who were charged with murder and attempted murder, respectively. The applicants sought bail pending their trial. The nature of the case was complex, involving serious criminal charges which required careful consideration of the applicants' circumstances and the interests of justice. The case was heard in the relevant court, which was responsible for deciding whether the applicants should be granted bail.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the applicants' role in the incident, their lack of prior criminal convictions, their youth, the support they had from their families, and the length of the delay in their trial. The court had to weigh these factors against the seriousness of the charges and the potential risk the applicants posed to the community. The applicants argued that their limited involvement in the incident, coupled with their clean criminal records, youth, and strong family support, constituted exceptional circumstances warranting bail. The prosecution, on the other hand, highlighted the gravity of the charges and the need to ensure public safety.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the applicants' arguments and the evidence presented. It found that the applicants' limited role in the incident, lack of prior convictions, youth, family support, and the delay in the trial constituted exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the court granted both applicants bail. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but concluded that the applicants' circumstances justified the grant of bail.

The final orders of the court were that both applicants were granted bail pending their trial. The court set specific conditions for the applicants' release, including reporting requirements, residence restrictions, and any other measures deemed necessary to ensure the applicants' attendance at court and to protect the community.

Orders