Re AJ (Revocation of Bail) - [2021] VSC 395

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0086

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977	Crown
v
IN THE MATTER of an Application for Revocation of Bail granted to AJ	Accused

---

JUDGE:	JANE DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 July 2021
DATE OF RULING:	1 July 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re AJ (Revocation of Bail)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 395

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant bailed to residential rehabilitation facility – Applicant alleged to have breached conditions of bail by possession of drug of dependence – Applicant discharged from drug rehabilitation facility – Applicant charged with breach of bail, possess drug of dependence, and commit indictable offence on bail – Application for revocation not opposed – Bail revoked – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 18AE, 18AF.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Hannan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr T Magazis	Theo Magazis & Associates

HER HONOUR:

On 21 May 2021, I granted AJ bail in relation to the matters where the Informant is Detective Senior Constable Zahra (‘D/S/C Zahra’). That grant of bail commenced on 25 May 2021. This ruling deals with the subsequent application to revoke AJ’s bail, and as such should be read in conjunction with my original reasons for granting bail.[1]
[1]Re AJ [2021] VSC 291.

The conditions of the grant of bail were as follows:

1.The said [AJ] be admitted to bail on 25 May 2021, or as soon as practicable thereafter, on his own undertaking, with a surety of $100,000, to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 2 August 2021 and then surrender himself, and not depart without the leave of the Court and, if leave is given, return at the time specified by the Court and again surrender himself into custody;
2.The following special conditions apply to this grant of bail:
a.The applicant be released into the custody of a staff member of The Cottage, 6-8 St Andrews Road, Shepparton, in the State of Victoria ('The Cottage');
b.The applicant is to reside at The Cottage until the conclusion of the four month residential program or conclusion of Committal proceedings in respect of the current charges (whichever occurs first); should the committal proceeding on 2 August 2021 not be concluded prior to the conclusion of the four month program at The Cottage, the applicant will be required to appear before this court for a review of his bail conditions on 20 September 2021;
c.The applicant must not leave the premises of The Cottage except in the company of a staff member of The Cottage;
d.The applicant must comply with all lawful directions of the staff at The Cottage;
e.The informant, or his delegate, may attend at The Cottage from time to time to confirm the applicant's presence at The Cottage;
f.That the applicant attend assessment and treatment with Dr Professor Ed Odgen, Addiction Medicine Specialist, or such other practitioner…

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 AJ (Revocation of Bail)

Details

AGLC: Re AJ (Revocation of Bail) [2021] VSC 395
Case: [2021] VSC 395
Decision Date: 1 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re AJ, the applicant was granted bail on the condition that he reside at a specified residential rehabilitation facility. The applicant was subsequently charged with breaching his bail conditions by possessing a drug of dependence. Further, he was charged with possessing a drug of dependence and committing an indictable offence while on bail. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant applied for the revocation of his bail, which was not opposed by any party.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's breach of his bail conditions constituted a sufficient ground to revoke his bail. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant's possession of the drug of dependence and the indictable offence constituted a sufficient ground for the revocation of bail. The court had to weigh the interests of the applicant against the need to ensure the safety of the community.

The court held that the applicant's breach of bail conditions was a sufficient ground for the revocation of his bail. The court found that the applicant's possession of a drug of dependence and the indictable offence charged against him also constituted a sufficient ground for the revocation of bail. The court considered the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending. The court concluded that the applicant's bail should be revoked in the interests of justice.

The court revoked the applicant's bail and ordered that he be remanded in custody until his next court appearance. The court also ordered that the applicant be given credit for the time already spent in custody. The court further ordered that the applicant's case be listed for a committal mention.

Orders