Re Ansell

[2007] VSC 82

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1424 of 2007

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by MICHAEL JAMES ANSELL

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 February 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 February 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Michael James Ansell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 82

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – ‘Show cause’ situation – Alleged offences constitute breach of intervention order - Application for bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Crown	Mr R. Scheid	OPP

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an application by Michael James Ansell for bail.  Mr Ansell is charged with offences of intentionally causing serious injury, recklessly causing serious injury, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, unlawful assault, breach of intervention order and common law assault; the victims of these assaults being his mother and his daughter.  He is also charged with resisting police.  These offences are alleged to have occurred whilst the applicant was on bail for a number of other offences, including one of aggravated burglary.  It is also alleged that they occurred whilst he was the subject of an intervention order issued by the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court to protect the two victims of the assault. 

1. To succeed on a bail application, Mr Ansell has a legal obligation to show cause why his continued detention in custody is not justified.

1. Mr Ansell has submitted a lengthy submission to the court in writing.  That document, which runs to many pages, commences with a long statement going to his defence of the charges with which he stands accused, including the raising of mental state defences, intoxication and similar.  It proceeds to outline the law of bail and deals with questions of exceptional circumstances and showing cause. With respect to the ‘show cause’ situation, Mr Ansell says he's never been really violent before and when he was violent, it was related to his taking of heroin.  He says that there is no real chance of his reoffending now, he's changed a lot, he's no longer on heroin, and he will turn up at court because he hasn't failed to do so for some time.  I note there are allegations that that is not correct. 

1. Mr Ansell says that he needs bail to prepare his defence because the police didn't investigate the charges properly and he needs to do so, and he has no faith in his lawyers and will need to prepare the case himself.

1. A considerable part of his submission is taken up with the discussion of mental dysfunction, including intoxication and sane automatism, with references to High Court and English authority.  It proceeds to discuss medical issues at length, although the relevance of these is somewhat doubtful; and concludes with a long and detailed discussion of his personal relationship with a Ms Demirovski, who is pregnant with his child, and a dissertation on his family and children.

1. Mr Ansell has added to those submissions with an oral submission in which he has summarised some of the points made in writing, and submitted that he has shown cause as to why his continued detention is not justified.  He has included a submission that the length of time he will be in custody would itself raise a question as to the justification for continuing that incarceration.

1. Having read all of the material that Mr Ansell has put and having regard to the charges which he faces, not only am I not satisfied that he has shown cause as to why he should be released on bail, even if he were not in a ‘show cause’ situation, bail would be refused.

1. The applicant has failed to show that his continued incarceration is  not justified. Bail is refused.

---