Re Aguer Goback and Goback Goback - [2022] VSC 229

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0094
S ECR 2022 0105

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application by AGUER GOBACK and GOBACK GOBACK

---

JUDGE:	Niall JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 May 2022
DATE OF ORDERS:	5 May 2022
DATE OF REASONS	9 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Aguer Goback and Goback Goback
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 229

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Applications for bail – Whether compelling reasons exist justifying the grant of bail – Whether exceptional circumstances exist justifying the grant of bail – Whether applicants are an unacceptable risk – Youthful offenders – Bail granted with conditions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4D and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Applicant Aguer Goback	Mr L Cameron	James Dowsley & Associates
For Applicant Goback Goback	Mr A Cameron	Matthew White and Associates
For the Respondent	Ms P Thorp	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 10 November 2021, following an investigation, Aguer Goback, was arrested and charged by Detective Senior Constable Thomas Stalder with attempted aggravated home invasion; threat to damage property; possess prohibited weapon without excuse; possess controlled weapon without excuse; commit indictable offence while on bail; possess drug of dependence (two charges); and deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. Aguer Goback answered ‘no comment’ during a record of interview.

On the same day, Goback Goback (who is the elder brother of Aguer Goback) and Kan Tap were arrested in relation to the incident. They were similarly charged and remanded in custody. In their records of interview, Mr Tap denied involvement and Goback Goback answered ‘no comment’.

Goback Goback and Aguer Gobeck were remanded in custody. Bail was refused in the Magistrates’ Court. The Goback brothers have each applied for bail in this Court. Their matters are next listed in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 10 June 2022 for a committal hearing.

At the conclusion of the hearing I granted bail to each applicant. These are my reasons for doing so.

The alleged offence

The prosecution allege that, on 30 September 2021, four people, including the tenant, were in a rented unit in Collingwood when three males approached and began banging on the front windows. The males were armed with poles and stabbed at the front security door with a machete, forcing it open, before opening the main door and throwing a piece of wood inside, striking the hip of one of the occupants.

The occupants rushed towards the door and forced it closed, while the three males yelled out demanding to be let in, stating, ‘We want the scooter, we want your cash, we are going to rob you.’ After five minutes of attempting to gain entry into the unit, the males abandoned their efforts, damaging a table out the front of the unit in the process.

The occupants reported…

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 Re Aguer Goback and Goback Goback

Details

AGLC: Re Aguer Goback and Goback Goback [2022] VSC 229
Case: [2022] VSC 229
Decision Date: 9 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Aguer Goback and Goback Goback, sought bail in the County Court of Victoria, in a case that required the court to consider the principles of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) in the context of their potential risk to the community and their personal circumstances. The applicants, both young, were facing charges that necessitated a thorough evaluation of whether they posed an unacceptable risk to the community and if there were compelling reasons to justify their release on bail.

The court had to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for bail under sections 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4D, and 4E of the Bail Act. This involved examining the nature and seriousness of the charges, the applicants' personal circumstances, and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted bail. The applicants' age and potential for rehabilitation were also considered in the context of the Act's objectives to ensure justice and the safety of the community.

In its judgment, the court found that despite the seriousness of the charges, the applicants' youth and the absence of a criminal history were significant factors. The court was satisfied that the applicants were not an unacceptable risk to the community and that compelling reasons existed for their release on bail. The court emphasised the importance of providing young offenders with the opportunity to reintegrate into society and avoid the long-term negative effects of imprisonment. Accordingly, the court granted bail to the applicants, subject to specific conditions designed to ensure their appearance in court and to protect the community.

The court ordered that the applicants be released on bail, subject to conditions including regular reporting to a bail justice, residence at a specified address, and compliance with a curfew. The applicants were also required to surrender their passports and refrain from contacting certain individuals. These conditions were intended to balance the applicants' right to liberty with the need to protect the community and ensure their attendance at future court hearings.

Orders