Rajic v R - [2016] VSC 27

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0003

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Frank RAJIC

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 February 2016
DATE OF RULING:	2 February 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rajic v R
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 27 First Revision, 1 August 2016

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Trafficking cannabis in a commercial quantity – Aggravated burglary – Using a firearm whilst a prohibited person – Reckless conduct endangering life – Cultivating cannabis – Theft – Dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime – Exceptional circumstances – Prior convictions – Prospects of rehabilitation – Place for applicant in residential rehabilitation facility – Prospect for applicant to begin outstanding Community Corrects Order - Unacceptable risk – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S. Tovey	Markotich Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms E. Ruddle	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is charged with aggravated burglary involving the use of a firearm, using a firearm whilst a prohibited person, reckless conduct endangering life, cultivating cannabis, trafficking a commercial quantity of cannabis and alternatives to that charge, theft, dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime and possessing an imitation firearm whilst a prohibited person.
The short facts that surround these charges are as follows. On 2 November 2015 the applicant and his co-accused Ahmed El-Sayegh are alleged to have attended a house at 103 Denton Avenue, St Albans. A hydroponic cannabis crop was being cultivated there. Alexander Diep lived at that address and, it appears, had been maintaining a well-advanced hydroponic crop of marijuana for about three months.
At about 4.30 am, El-Sayegh and the applicant are alleged to have approached the front door of the house and banged on the door, demanding entry. Diep is said to have yelled to the two men to go away. The metal security door was ripped open and an attempt was made unsuccessfully to break down the reinforced wooden front door. The two men managed to smash a hole in the front door and it is alleged that one of the men fired a shot through the front door from a .44 calibre handgun. This penetrated the front door, ricocheted off the tiles and penetrated the side of a washing basket. The two men are alleged to have threatened Diep that, if he did not let them into the house, they would shoot him. Diep allowed them entry and he says that he saw both men with a handgun.
Both men then set about harvesting the cannabis plants. The harvested portions were removed from the hydroponic room and placed in a pile adjacent to the side door. Police, presumably alerted by the commotion that occurred while the men were effecting entry, arrived shortly thereafter, making a loud, verbal identification. El-Sayegh 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 Rajic v R

Details

AGLC: Rajic v R [2016] VSC 27
Case: [2016] VSC 27
Decision Date: 2 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rajic versus The Queen, the respondent applied for bail from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Rajic, was facing multiple charges including trafficking cannabis in a commercial quantity, aggravated burglary, using a firearm while being a prohibited person, reckless conduct endangering life, cultivating cannabis, theft, and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant qualified for bail, considering the severity and nature of the charges.

The court considered the principles of bail as outlined in the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). It was established that the applicant had a history of prior convictions, which indicated a likelihood of reoffending. The court also evaluated the exceptional circumstances in favour of bail, such as the prospect of the applicant beginning an outstanding Community Corrects Order and the availability of a residential rehabilitation facility. Despite these factors, the court determined that the risk posed to the community and the likelihood of reoffending were significant, outweighing the exceptional circumstances.

Ultimately, the court decided that the applicant did not meet the criteria for bail due to the unacceptable risk to the community and the risk of reoffending. The court was particularly concerned about the applicant's history of violent and drug-related offences, and the potential for further criminal activity. The application for bail was therefore refused. The court emphasised the need to protect the community and the importance of deterrence in cases involving serious criminal conduct.

Orders