| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0052
S ECR 2022 0058
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 | |
| v | |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by CO | Applicant |
| – and – | |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by IJ | Applicant |
---
JUDGE: | Jane Dixon J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 March 2022 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 11 March 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Application for Bail by CO and Anor |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 138 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Child applicants – Co-accused – Applications heard together –Applicants charged with aggravated home invasion and other charges – One applicant is Aboriginal – Two other co-accused already granted bail – Whether exceptional circumstances – Whether unacceptable risk – Bail Act 1977 – ss 1B, 3A, 3B, 3AAA, 4A, 4E.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant IJ | Mr J Barreiro | Adrian Paull Solicitors |
| For the Applicant CO | Mr M Sturges | Criminal Lawyers Geelong |
| For the Respondent | Mr B Nibbs | Office of Public Prosecutions |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
In this matter, police members Detective Senior Constable Sims and Senior Constable Ashton have charged four child offenders in relation to an alleged home invasion that occurred on 9 February 2022 in Colac. The offenders were charged as follows (‘Ashton charges’).
The applicant IJ (age 16) was charged with:
(a) Aggravated Home Invasion;[1]
[1]Section 77B of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(b) Threat to Inflict Serious Injury[2] (2 charges);
[2]Section 21 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(c) Burglary;[3]
[3]Section 76 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(d) Intentionally Cause Injury;[4]
[4]Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(e) Assault in Company;[5]
[5]Section 23 Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic)
(f) Criminal Damage;[6]
(g) Carry Dangerous Article;[7] and
(h) Commit indicatable offence while on bail.[8]
[6]Section 197 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[7]Section 7 of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic).
[8]Section 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
The applicant CO (age 17) was charged with:
(a) Aggravated Home Invasion;[9]
[9]Section 77B of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(b) Burglary;[10]
[10]Section 76 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(c) Intentionally Cause Injury; [11]
[11]Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(d) Assault with weapon;[12]
[12]Section 23 Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).
(e) Criminal Damage;[13]
[13]Section 77B of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(f) Carry Dangerous Article;[14]
(g) Contravene personal safety intervention order (‘PSIO’);[15] and
(h) Commit indicatable offence while on bail. [16]
[14]Section 7 of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic).
[15]Section 100(2) of the Personal Safety Intervention Order Act 2020.
[16]Section 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
ER (age 17) was charged with:
(a) Aggravated Home Invasion;[17]
[17]Section 77B of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(b) Threat to Inflict Serious Injury[18] (2 charges);
[18]Section 21 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(c) Burglary[19] (to be amended to aggravated burglary);
[19]Section 76 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(d) Unlawful…
Continue reading Application for Bail by Co and Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Application for Bail by CO and Anor [2022] VSC 138
- Case
- [2022] VSC 138
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants should be granted bail and whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant such a decision. The court needed to assess the risk of unacceptable harm if the applicants were released on bail, considering their co-accused had already been granted bail. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicants' backgrounds, including one being of Aboriginal descent, and how this might impact the bail decision.
The court thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented, focusing on the nature of the charges, the applicants' backgrounds, and the risk factors involved. It was noted that the applicants had already been remanded in custody, and there were two other co-accused who had been granted bail. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the potential for reoffending, and the risk to the community if the applicants were released. Ultimately, the court found that exceptional circumstances did not exist and that there was an unacceptable risk of reoffending if the applicants were granted bail. Consequently, the court denied the application for bail.
The final orders of the court were that the applications for bail by Co and Anor were dismissed. The applicants remained in custody pending the resolution of their criminal proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.