Re Alimic - [2021] VSC 235

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0076

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and –

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by MARIA ALIMIC

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Alimic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 235

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – 54-year-old applicant with lengthy criminal history – Charge of conspiracy to defraud – Judge alone trial – Trial already commenced, and to recommence following hiatus on 31 May 2021 - Previous applications for bail before judge of County Court – No application made to trial judge – Whether this Court should exercise its discretion to entertain application – Application entertained – Compelling reason case – Applicant serving sentence – Non-parole period had been served but no determination by Adult Parole Board to grant parole – Combination of matters relied upon by applicant in proof of a compelling reason – Compelling reason not established – Unacceptable risk in any event – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Kenny with Ms L Thies	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Respondent	Mr T Gyorffy QC with Ms J Croxford	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail on charges she faces of conspiracy to defraud, contravening a conduct condition of bail (two charges) and failing to comply with a direction to assist under s 465AAA of the Crimes Act 1958.

The charges of contravening a conduct condition of bail are laid under s 30A of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’). Offences against the Act are Schedule 2 offences.[1] As a result, the applicant is in the situation of having to show that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail.[2]
[1] Schedule 2, item 30.
[2]The Act, ss 4AA(3) and 4C(1A).

A preliminary issue was raised by the respondent as to whether it would be appropriate in the circumstances for the Court to entertain this application for bail.

Procedural history

The offence of conspiracy to defraud is alleged to have been committed by the applicant between 1 July 2015 and 8 March 2016. The applicant was charged with this offence on 8 March 2016 and released on police bail.

On 6 October 2016, the applicant was charged with the other offences listed above. Bail was revoked in the Geelong Magistrates’ Court and the applicant was remanded in custody.

On 21 October 2016, bail was refused in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on the basis that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of failing to answer bail or endangering the safety or welfare of any person.

Between January 2017 and March 2018, a number of applications for bail in the Magistrates’ Court were withdrawn by the applicant prior to hearing.

On 27…

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 Alimic

Details

AGLC: Re Alimic [2021] VSC 235
Case: [2021] VSC 235
Decision Date: 5 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a 54-year-old with an extensive criminal history, sought bail from the Supreme Court of Victoria in relation to a charge of conspiracy to defraud. The matter was being heard by a judge alone, and the trial had already begun before a hiatus was called on 31 May 2021. The applicant had previously made bail applications to the County Court without success and had not made an application to the trial judge. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether it should exercise its discretion to hear the application for bail.

The court considered the criteria under the Bail Act 1977, including the need to establish a compelling reason for bail and the risk of flight or reoffending. The applicant argued that there was a compelling reason for bail because he had served his non-parole period but was still awaiting a decision from the Adult Parole Board. The court acknowledged the applicant's argument but ultimately found that the combination of the matters relied upon by the applicant did not establish a compelling reason for bail. The court also found that there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would reoffend if granted bail.

The court refused the application for bail, noting the seriousness of the charge and the applicant's criminal history. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the risk of reoffending and the need to protect the community. The court did not make any orders for the applicant's continued detention.

Orders