Re Al-Jinavo - [2017] VSC 413

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0115

Re an Application for bail by Steve Al-Jinavo

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 July 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 July 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Steve Al-Jinavo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 413

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Show cause – Offences involving family violence – Firearms offences – Delay – Significant criminal history – History of drug use including methamphetamine – Unacceptable risk – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 4(4)(a), 4(4)(c), 4(4)(d) and 18AA(1)(a) – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Richard Maidment SC	Sarah Tricarico Lawyers
For the Accused	Mr James Kibel	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant Steve Al-Jinavo (DOB: 13 August 1986) seeks bail. He has been on remand since he was arrested on 6 February 2017.

He was arrested after an incident the day before when, allegedly, he physically assaulted and threatened his former domestic partner, Ms Lola Kanjou. The charges laid by Informant Norris are:

·intentionally causing injury( charge 1);
·unlawful assault (charge 2);
·being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (charge 3);
·threatening to kill Ms Kanjou and her infant son Daniel (charges 4 & 5);
·criminal damage (charge 6); and
·committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (charges 7 & 8).

I am also informed that Norris has laid several further charges in respect of the applicant’s arrest on 6 February 2017. According to paragraph 5 of her affidavit in opposition to bail, they are:

·handling stolen goods (charge 9);
·being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (charge 10);
·possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence/permit (charge 11);
·committing an indicatable offence whilst on bail (charge 12); and
·possessing a controlled weapon without lawful excuse (charge 13).

The applicant is also facing a number of charges for other offences committed or allegedly committed between November 2016 and February 2017. I will say more about those charges in a moment.

This is the applicant’s second application for bail to this court on the Norris charges, bail having been refused by Lasry J on 13 April 2017.[1] Accordingly, pursuant to s 18AA(1)(a) of the Bail Act 1977 (“the Act”), the applicant needed to demonstrate new facts or circumstances in order to make a fresh application for bail.
[1]Re Steve Al-Jinavo [2017] VSC 198.

The applicant relied on two matters to establish new facts and circumstances – first, delay in the hearing of the Norris charges (which are now listed for summary contest in late November 2017) and, second, some DNA parentage results, of which I will say more later. The prosecutor conceded that new facts and circumstances were made out based on delay, even though he still opposed the grant of bail.

During the hearing, I found that new facts and circumstances were made out and the hearing proceeded by way of submissions. No evidence was called, the parties content…

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 Al-Jinavo

Details

AGLC: Re Steve Al-Jinavo [2017] VSC 413
Case: [2017] VSC 413
Decision Date: 13 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Al-Jinavo, appealed against the decision of the County Court of Victoria, which refused him bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The appellant, facing multiple charges including family violence and firearms offences, sought release on bail pending the resolution of his criminal proceedings. The County Court considered various factors, including the appellant's history of drug use, specifically methamphetamine, and his extensive criminal record, which prompted concerns about the risk he posed to the community and potential witnesses.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the appellant's history of drug use and criminal activity constituted sufficient grounds for denying bail under sections 4(4)(a), 4(4)(c), and 4(4)(d) of the Act. Additionally, the court assessed whether the appellant's risk to witnesses and the community warranted a refusal of bail under section 18AA(1)(a). The court had to balance the appellant's right to liberty with the need to protect the community and ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

In assessing the appellant's application, the County Court emphasised the seriousness of the charges and the potential for witness intimidation. The court found that the appellant's significant criminal history, coupled with his history of drug use, particularly methamphetamine, presented an unacceptable risk to the community. This conclusion was supported by evidence that the appellant had failed to comply with previous bail conditions and had a pattern of reoffending. Consequently, the County Court concluded that the appellant's release on bail would not be in the interests of justice, and the bail application was denied.

The Court of Appeal upheld the County Court's decision, affirming that the trial judge had correctly applied the provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant remained in custody pending the resolution of his criminal proceedings.

Orders