JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 September 2018
DATE OF ORDERS:	13 September 2018
DATE OF REASONS:	14 September 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hall v Pangemanan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 533

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant, aged 37, charged with being drunk in a public place and breaching a condition of bail (namely, a curfew) – Offences allegedly committed while on bail for being drunk in a public place and breaching a conduct condition of bail – Applicant intellectually disabled and living in supported accommodation – Previously found to be unfit to plead, which state is likely permanent – Even if fit to plead, would not be imprisoned if found guilty – High risk of committing offence of being drunk in a public place if released on bail – Incapable of complying with curfew and many other bail conditions – Whether exceptional circumstances – Whether unacceptable risk of reoffending if bailed – Bail not opposed by prosecution – Extremely unusual case – Bail granted upon own undertaking with static address – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 3AAAA, 3AAA, 4A, 4B, 4E & 30A(1) and Schedules 1 and 2; Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic), s 14.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms S. Lenthall	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms M. Mahady	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

Yesterday afternoon, 13 September 2018, I heard and granted an urgent application for bail by Brock Hall. I gave ex tempore reasons but indicated I would publish more detailed reasons at a later time. These are those more detailed reasons.

Arrest, charge and refusal of bail

It is alleged that, at about 10:20 p.m. on 10 September 2018, Mr Hall was found drunk by police at a public place, namely the Harbour Town Tram Stop in Docklands. It is also alleged that he was in breach of a curfew condition of his previous bail, fixed about three weeks earlier on a charge of public drunkenness, which required that he remain at his home address between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

He was then arrested by Constable Nico Pangemanan and charged with two summary offences – being drunk in a public place[1] and contravening a conduct condition of bail, namely a curfew condition.[2] He was remanded into custody.
[1] Contrary to s 14 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).
[2] Contrary to s 30A(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

The next day, he was brought before the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, where he applied for bail. That application, however, was refused.

Mr Hall’s background

Mr Hall is now 37 years of age, being born on 21 May 1981. His funds are managed by the State Trustees…

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 Hall v Pangemanan

Details

AGLC: Hall v Pangemanan [2018] VSC 533
Case: [2018] VSC 533
Decision Date: 14 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v Pangemanan involved a 37-year-old applicant who was charged with being drunk in a public place and breaching a condition of bail, specifically a curfew. The applicant had been on bail for similar charges and was living in supported accommodation. A previous assessment had found the applicant to be unfit to plead due to intellectual disability, a state which is likely to be permanent. Even if fit to plead, the applicant would not be imprisoned if found guilty. The primary concern was the high risk of the applicant committing the offence of being drunk in a public place if released on bail and their inability to comply with curfew and other bail conditions. The court had to determine if there were exceptional circumstances that warranted bail and whether there was an unacceptable risk of reoffending if the applicant was bailed. The prosecution did not oppose the bail application.

The central legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the exceptional circumstances under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) applied and if there was an unacceptable risk of reoffending if the applicant was granted bail. Given the applicant's intellectual disability, the court considered their ability to comply with bail conditions and the risk they posed to the community. The court also had to assess the likelihood of the applicant reoffending if released on bail. The prosecution did not oppose the bail application, which added a layer of complexity to the court's decision-making process.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the extremely unusual nature of the case. It recognised the applicant's intellectual disability and the unlikelihood of imprisonment even if found guilty. The court found that there were exceptional circumstances due to the applicant's unique situation and the low risk of reoffending. The court granted bail on the applicant's own undertaking and required the applicant to reside at a static address. The court balanced the need to protect the community against the applicant's rights and circumstances. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering individual circumstances in bail applications, particularly in cases involving intellectual disability and unique risk factors.

The court ordered that the applicant be granted bail on their own undertaking and that they reside at a specified static address. The bail conditions were tailored to the applicant's specific circumstances, reflecting the court's consideration of their intellectual disability and the low risk of reoffending. This decision underscores the importance of a nuanced approach to bail applications, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Orders