Re Ali - [2022] VSC 581

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0192

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by MOHAMED ALI

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 August 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 September 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Ali
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 581

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of armed robbery, robbery, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury — Availability of stable employment and accommodation — Availability of community support — Strength of prosecution case — Compelling reason found — Respondent alleged family violence history relevant to risk — Risk not unacceptable with conditions —Bail granted — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 4A, 4AA, 4D, 4E, 4E, 5AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr John Moore	Matthew White & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms Lisa Andrews	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for bail by Mohamed Ali (‘the applicant’). He is currently on remand on the following charges brought by Senior Constable James Mioch, relating to events alleged to have occurred on 6 June 2021 (‘the Mioch matter’):

· armed robbery;

· robbery;

· intentionally causing injury;

· recklessly causing injury.

Procedural history

The applicant was arrested and charged in the Mioch matter on 9 June 2021.[1] He was remanded overnight and granted bail in the Magistrates’ Court the following day, on 10 June 2021, on the basis of treatment available to him in the community, and his lack of relevant prior convictions and bail history.
[1]At that time, the applicant was also charged with the additional offences of unlawful assault and possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence, which have since fallen away.

On 9 December 2021, the applicant was charged and remanded on unrelated family violence offences (‘the family violence matter’).

On 15 December 2021, the applicant’s bail in the Mioch matter was revoked by consent.

On 3 February 2022, the applicant was committed to stand trial in the County Court on the Mioch matter.

On 13 May 2022, the charges in the family violence matter were withdrawn.

On 5 July 2022, the applicant applied for and was refused bail in the County Court in the Mioch matter, on the basis that he had not shown a compelling reason justifying the grant of bail.

On 2 August 2022, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court. The matter is next listed for a further directions hearing in the County Court on 8 September 2022, with a joint trial scheduled to commence on 27 April 2023.

Alleged offending

On 4 June 2021, the complainant, Nathan Horvat, went to the applicant’s apartment in Collingwood to buy MDMA with a mutual friend, Omar Boru (‘the initial transaction’). The complainant was told that the drugs were not there and that he would need to meet another person in Parkville to purchase them. This other…

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 Ali

Details

AGLC: Re Ali [2022] VSC 581
Case: [2022] VSC 581
Decision Date: 7 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Ali involved the respondent applying for bail on charges of armed robbery, robbery, intentionally causing injury, and recklessly causing injury. The matter was heard in the Victorian Magistrates’ Court. The key legal issues before the court were whether the respondent met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) and if there were compelling reasons to grant bail given the circumstances of the case.

The court examined the respondent’s ties to the community, including the availability of stable employment and accommodation, as well as the strength of the prosecution case against him. The respondent argued that there were compelling reasons for granting bail, highlighting his alleged history of family violence, which the court considered relevant to the risk assessment. The prosecution did not oppose bail on the basis of the respondent's history of family violence, but argued that the charges were serious and the risk of reoffending was high.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that there were compelling reasons to grant bail. The respondent's alleged family violence history, while concerning, did not render the risk of reoffending unacceptable when balanced against the conditions that could be imposed. The court concluded that the respondent could be released on bail subject to certain conditions, including strict reporting requirements and electronic monitoring. The court's decision was grounded in the principles of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ensuring that the decision was both fair and in line with statutory requirements.

Orders