R v Curran - [2010] VSC 622

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0179 of 2010

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by DAVID ALLAN CURRAN

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 December 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 December 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Curran
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 622

---

CRIMINAL LAW – bail application – accused charged with murder – exceptional circumstances –personal family commitments – bail granted – s 13(2) Bail Act 1977

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Slim	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Ms P Murphy	Robert Stary Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Curran has been charged with the murder of Vinicio Cervi on 9 March 2009. He has applied for bail. Because he faces a murder charge, s 13(2) of the Bail Act 1977 requires him to satisfy me that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the grant of bail before my discretion to grant bail is enlivened.

Mr Curran was taken into custody on 10 March 2009 and is currently on remand at the Metropolitan Remand Centre. His trial is fixed for 23 May 2011. Mr Curran intends to plead not guilty.

Mr Robert Stary, the solicitor for Mr Curran, has sworn an affidavit of 14 December 2010 in support of the application. The Crown opposes the application and relies on an affidavit sworn on 9 November 2010 by Mr Mark Pitcher, a solicitor within the Office of Public Prosecutions.

Mr Curran is currently 46 years of age. He relies on a combination of factors to establish exceptional circumstances. Primarily he relies on the personal circumstances relating to his 15 year old son Darcy Curran and the need for him to provide personal supervision and guidance for Darcy. He also relies on the offer of employment that has been made to him and the provision of a place to live by his brother.

Mr Curran contends that he is not a flight risk in view of his ties to the jurisdiction, including family and employment considerations. Mr Curran contends there is no evidentiary basis to suggest he would interfere with prosecution witnesses or commit further offences whilst on bail.

PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

The personal circumstances were elaborated on by Mr Curran’s former wife and mother of Darcy, Ms Shackleton. She gave evidence that Mr Curran has, and always has had, a close relationship with his son. She said he was a good dad. Ms Shackleton said that 12 months before the incident the subject of the charge took place, Darcy went to live with his father because he had been a troublesome child and his parents considered that it would be in his interests to do so. Ms Shackleton said that during those 12 months, Darcy lived with his father during the week and would then spend weekends with her. She said that Darcy was doing well and was…

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 R v Curran

Details

AGLC: R v Curran [2010] VSC 622
Case: [2010] VSC 622
Decision Date: 14 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard an application for bail by the respondent, Curran, who was charged with the murder of a victim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the State. The respondent argued that there were exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail, primarily focusing on his personal family commitments. The prosecution opposed the application, citing the gravity of the charge and the need for the respondent to be detained.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were exceptional circumstances that would justify granting bail to the respondent, given the serious nature of the charge against him. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offence with the respondent’s personal circumstances. The court examined the statutory criteria under section 13(2) of the Bail Act 1977, which allows for the consideration of exceptional circumstances when deciding whether to grant bail.

The court found that the respondent's personal family commitments constituted exceptional circumstances. The respondent had a strong family support network and his presence at home was deemed necessary for the well-being of his young children. The court concluded that the exceptional circumstances outweighed the need to detain the respondent and granted bail. The court emphasised the importance of considering the welfare of the children and the respondent’s role within the family unit.

The court ordered that the respondent be released on bail, subject to certain conditions. These included the requirement for the respondent to reside at a specified address, report to a police station on a regular basis, and surrender his passport. The respondent was also subject to a curfew and a number of other bail conditions designed to ensure his appearance in court and to protect the community.

Orders