R v Edwards - [2016] VSC 672

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0150

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Jamie Edwards

---

JUDGE:	ELLIOTT J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	26, 27 OCTOBER 2016
DATE OF RULING:	28 OCTOBER 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v EDWARDS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 672

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Threats to kill – Threats to inflict serious injury – False imprisonment – Criminal damage – Unlawful assault – Prior convictions – Previous threats and breaches of bail conditions – Whether an unacceptable risk – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s 4(1) and (2) – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A Phelan	Victoria Police
For the Accused	Mr H Roberts	Allan McMonnies

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

Jamie Edwards (“the Applicant”), was born on 1 October 1991. He is currently located at Port Phillip Prison.

On 27 August 2016, the Applicant was charged with the following offences:

(1) Making threats to kill pursuant to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(2)Threatening to inflict serious injury pursuant to s 21 of the Crimes Act.

(3) False imprisonment (common law).
(4) Criminal damage to property pursuant to s 197(1) of the Crimes Act.
(5)Unlawful assault pursuant to s 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).
(6)Possession of wildlife without a licence pursuant to the Wildlife Act 1975 (Vic).[1]

[1]The charge did not properly identify the relevant provision of the Wildlife Act. During the course of closing submissions, it was agreed the application would proceed without consideration of any charge under this Act.

The Applicant applies, pursuant to s 4 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), for the grant of bail, to which he is entitled subject to s 4(2) of the Act.[2] That provision requires the court to refuse bail if, amongst other things, the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail, would –

Fail to surrender himself into custody in answer to his bail;
Commit an offence whilst on bail;
Endanger the safety or welfare of members of the public; or
Interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person.[3]
[2]The parties accepted s 4(4) of the Bail Act did not apply.
[3]Bail Act, s 4(2)(d)(i).

B. Material in support of the application

In support of the application for bail, reliance was placed upon an affidavit sworn by the Applicant’s solicitor, Allan McMonnies, on 14 October 2016 (“the Supporting Affidavit”), which exhibits a report dated 20 July 2014 (“the Report”) from a then consulting forensic psychologist, Robert J Cock (“the Psychologist”).

The Supporting Affidavit is said to be based on information provided by the Applicant’s barrister or from the solicitor’s own personal knowledge “save where otherwise stated”. In turn, the information provided by the…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2016] VSC 672
Case: [2016] VSC 672
Decision Date: 28 OCTOBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Edwards, faced charges including threats to kill, threats to inflict serious injury, false imprisonment, criminal damage, and unlawful assault. These charges stemmed from a series of incidents, some of which involved previous breaches of bail conditions. Edwards had a history of similar offences and threats. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where the primary concern was whether granting bail posed an unacceptable risk to the community.

The legal issues before the court were whether Edwards posed an unacceptable risk to the community, given his history of violent conduct and previous breaches of bail conditions. The court needed to consider the nature and seriousness of the offences, Edwards' criminal history, and the likelihood of reoffending. Under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), the court had to weigh the risk of harm to the community against the presumption in favour of bail. The court also considered whether there were sufficient conditions that could be imposed to mitigate any risk.

In assessing these factors, the court determined that Edwards' extensive criminal history, including numerous convictions for violent offences and breaches of bail, indicated a significant risk of reoffending. The court found that the threats he had made were particularly concerning, given their severity and the potential for harm. The court concluded that, even with strict bail conditions, the risk of Edwards reoffending was too high to justify granting bail. Therefore, the application for bail was refused under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), sections 4(1) and (4)(2).

No further orders were made beyond the refusal of bail.

Orders