DPP v Ghiller - [2000] VSC 435

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE

Not Restricted

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1494 of 2000

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Revocation of Bail of:
JASON GHILLER

---

JUDGE:	Eames J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 September 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 September 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Jason Ghiller
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 435

---

Bail – appeal by DPP against grant of bail – multiple serious offences alleged – youth of alleged offender – whether unacceptable risk if granted bail.
Bail Act 1977, s 18A

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.W. Rapke QC	Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
For Mr Ghiller	Mr P.J. Morrissey with Miss N. Gobbo	Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

This is an appeal against a grant of bail and is brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s.18A of the Bail Act 1977.

The respondent to the application is Jason Emanuelle Ghiller, who was granted bail by Deputy Chief Magistrate Ms Popovic on 28 August 2000.

The respondent is facing trial on 67 counts of armed robbery relating to robberies on 33 separate occasions but involving in some instances multiple victims of robbery. He is also charged on one count of attempted murder, three counts of intentionally cause serious injury (those with alternate counts of recklessly causing injury) and one count of obtaining property by deception.

The offences are alleged to have taken place between December 1991 and October 1994. The first alleged offence occurred about a week after his 16th birthday, the last when he was aged 18 years and ten months. He is now aged 24 years.

The Crown alleges that the offences were committed with his uncle, Bendali Michael Debs, who is now aged 47 years.

The armed robberies, on the Crown case, were committed in strikingly similar ways, involving two persons, one very youthful, robbing restaurants and other small retail businesses, armed with hand guns. The armed robberies were of a particularly serious character and were accompanied by violent, dangerous and threatening conduct designed to intimidate occupants of the premises. In the course of the robberies a gun was discharged more than once, with bullets or bullet fragments striking people. Other victims were punched and pushed, and victims were bound by tape whilst the offenders escaped.

On 28 November 1992, during a robbery at a newsagency, the male proprietor was shot in the back, causing subsequent paralysis, as he attempted to shield his wife. The Director of Public Prosecutions alleges that Debs fired that shot intending to kill the store owner and that the respondent is equally guilty of the crime of attempted murder, by his complicity in the armed robbery.

In addition, the Crown alleges that the respondent was present and is equally complicit with Debs, when, the Crown alleges, Debs, on 19 September 1994, fired three shots at two police officers when he and the respondent were fleeing from the scene of an armed…

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 DPP v Ghiller

Details

AGLC: DPP v Ghiller [2000] VSC 435
Case: [2000] VSC 435
Decision Date: 28 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Ghiller involved the Director of Public Prosecutions appealing against the grant of bail to a young person accused of multiple serious offences. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the initial decision to grant bail was appropriate, considering the gravity of the alleged crimes and the potential risk posed to the community if the accused were released. The appeal hinged on whether the risk of the accused committing further offences or failing to appear in court was unacceptable if bail were to be granted.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in granting bail to the accused, who was facing serious charges. The Crown argued that the risk of reoffending and failing to appear in court was too high to justify bail, given the nature of the alleged offences and the youth of the accused. The Court was required to consider the relevant criteria under the Bail Act 1977, particularly section 18A, which mandates that bail should not be granted if it is not in the interests of justice to do so, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the likelihood of the accused absconding or reoffending.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not erred in granting bail. The Court found that the trial judge had appropriately weighed the seriousness of the alleged offences against the factors supporting the grant of bail, including the youth of the accused and the likelihood of reoffending. The Court concluded that the risk of reoffending or failing to appear in court was not so high as to preclude the possibility of bail being granted. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision to grant bail to the accused.

The Court did not make any specific orders beyond affirming the decision to grant bail. The accused remained on bail pending the resolution of the underlying criminal charges.

Orders