Re an application for Bail by Vasko Stankovski - [2016] VSC 310

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0063

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

And

IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail by Vasko Stankovski

---

JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 June 2016
DATE OF RULING:	2 June 2016 (Revised 3 June 2016)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Application for Bail by Vasko Stankovski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 310

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Show cause – Applicant charged with offences while on bail – Multiple previous convictions – Long standing drug addiction – Offer of place in residential rehabilitation program - Unacceptable risk of offending while on bail – Application refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 4(2), 4(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Jonathan Miller	Haines & Polites
For the Respondent	Mr Peter McKimmie	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Vasko Stankovski, was arrested in a printing factory in Crown Street, Richmond, on 11 November 2015. He was charged with 18 offences, which included four charges of theft of a motor vehicle, three charges of theft from a motor vehicle, one charge of theft, one charge of obtaining property by deception, two charges of handling stolen goods, one charge of evading police, two charges of reckless conduct endangering serious injury, one charge of careless driving, and one charge of failing to give name and address. The applicant was also charged with two charges of committing an indictable offence while on bail pursuant to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977, and contravening certain conduct conditions contrary to s 30A(1) of the Bail Act.

After his arrest the applicant was conveyed to the Heidelberg police station, charged, and remanded in custody. Earlier, on 23 September 2015, the applicant’s undertaking of bail on a charge of handling stolen goods had been extended with reporting and residence conditions. The offences with which the applicant was charged on 11 November 2015 were alleged to have occurred whilst he was at large awaiting trial for that indictable offence. The applicant did not apply for bail at that time, and police successfully applied to revoke outstanding bail and on 11 November 2015, the Heidelberg Magistrates Court remanded the applicant into custody.

On 12 April 2016, the applicant was sentenced to five months imprisonment on a consolidated plea hearing. The magistrate declared a period of pre-sentence detention and the sentence imposed as having already been served. The applicant was then classified as a remand prisoner and held in custody on the charges earlier referred to.

An application for bail was listed in the Heidelberg Magistrates Court on 13 May 2016. On that day, the applicant was charged with four further offences, being theft of a motor vehicle, handling stolen goods, negligently dealing with proceeds of crime, and recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime.

The applicant contended before the magistrate that the offer of a place in Odyssey House Victoria’s Therapeutic Community…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re an application for Bail by Vasko Stankovski and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] VSC 310
Decision Date: 2 June 2016 (Revised 3 June 2016)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of an application for bail by Vasko Stankovski, the respondent was before the County Court of Victoria. The applicant, Vasko Stankovski, sought bail in relation to charges he faced while already on bail for other offences. The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), given his extensive criminal history and ongoing drug addiction. The court also needed to assess the risk of the applicant reoffending while on bail and whether a place in a residential rehabilitation program would sufficiently mitigate this risk.

The court considered the applicant’s criminal history, which included multiple previous convictions, and his long-standing drug addiction. The court also took into account the offer for the applicant to enter a residential rehabilitation program as a condition of bail. Despite this offer, the court concluded that the risk of the applicant reoffending while on bail was unacceptable. The court found that the applicant’s previous criminal conduct and his addiction posed a significant risk of reoffending, which could not be adequately managed by the proposed rehabilitation program. Consequently, the court refused the applicant's bail application under sections 4(2) and 4(4) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

The court's reasoning was that the applicant’s history of offending, coupled with his drug addiction, created an unacceptable risk of reoffending. The court was not satisfied that the proposed conditions, including the residential rehabilitation program, were sufficient to mitigate this risk. The court emphasised that the primary consideration was the protection of the community and ensuring that the applicant would not reoffend while on bail. The court's decision to refuse bail was grounded in the need to prevent the applicant from engaging in further criminal activity.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the bail application, keeping the applicant in custody pending the resolution of the charges against him. The court’s decision highlighted the importance of considering the broader public interest and the specific circumstances of the applicant in determining whether bail should be granted.

Orders