Re Application for Bail by ATL - [2022] VSC 104

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0034

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977	Applicant
v
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by ATL	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 February & 3 March 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 March 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by ATL
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 104

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant charged with intentionally causing injury and other offences – Established diagnosis of schizophrenia – Recent non-compliance with medication and mental health treatment – No criminal history – First time in custody – Strong family support – Compelling reasons established – Unacceptable risk not established – Bail granted with strict conditions – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4C, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A Pyne	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms A Buzo	Victoria Police

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant, ATL, has been remanded in custody since 10 January 2022 on the following charges:

(a) Charge 1: Intentionally causing injury;

(b) Charge 2: Recklessly causing injury;

(c) Charge 3: Assault with a weapon;

(d) Charge 4: Assault by kicking; and

(e) Charge 5: Unlawful assault.

The applicant is a 23-year old woman with an established diagnosis of schizophrenia since she was 17 years old. Upon being arrested on the above charges, she was assessed as not fit for interview. She has since spent four weeks at the forensic mental health unit at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre (‘DPFC’).

Summary of the alleged offending

The complainant in this matter, Joseph D is an 83-year-old man who was living by himself in a residential home which was situated near to the address of the applicant. At the time of the offending, the applicant was residing with her mother and brothers in the family home.

Information gathered by police from the applicant and other witnesses reveals that in the three months leading up to the charged incident, a young woman believed to be the applicant was sighted on numerous occasions sitting in a white Hyundai Veloster which was parked outside or near the complainant’s home. She was noticed to be sitting in the car playing loud music. On a few occasions, according to Joseph D, the applicant approached the victim’s front door and rang the doorbell but when he asked her to leave, she complied without incident.

On 9 January 2022, shortly before midnight, he was home alone when he heard a knock on the front door. He went to answer the door and after seeing that no one was there, he walked into the backyard and towards the side gate. Upon opening the side gate, he recognised the applicant as the same person he had noticed over the preceding three months. He told her to leave, and she complied. A short while later, at 12:42am on 10 January 2022, Joseph D’s doorbell camera recorded…

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 Application for Bail by ATL

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail by ATL [2022] VSC 104
Case: [2022] VSC 104
Decision Date: 3 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application for bail by an individual identified as ATL, who was charged with intentionally causing injury and other related offences. The applicant had an established diagnosis of schizophrenia, which raised significant concerns about their mental health and potential impact on their ability to comply with bail conditions. Additionally, there were recent instances of non-compliance with prescribed medication and mental health treatment, further complicating the application. The court was tasked with balancing the risk of the applicant reoffending against the potential impact of their mental health condition and the support available from their family.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if released on bail. This required a thorough assessment of the applicant's mental health, history of compliance with treatment, and the strength of the reasons for bail as set out in the Bail Act 1977. The court also had to consider the nature and seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal history, and the support network available to them. Given the applicant's first-time involvement in the criminal justice system and the presence of strong family support, these factors played a significant role in the court's deliberations.

After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the compelling reasons for granting bail outweighed the risk of reoffending. The applicant's mental health condition, while serious, did not establish an unacceptable risk when coupled with strict bail conditions aimed at ensuring ongoing compliance with treatment and monitoring. The court found that the applicant had no prior criminal history and had the support of a strong family unit, which provided a measure of stability and accountability. Consequently, the court granted bail with specific conditions designed to mitigate any potential risks to the community.

The court's final orders included strict conditions that required the applicant to adhere to a treatment plan for their schizophrenia, regularly report to a bail supervisor, and refrain from any activities that could lead to a breach of bail. These conditions were intended to ensure that the applicant's mental health needs were managed effectively while in the community, thereby reducing the likelihood of reoffending and protecting public safety.

Orders