Re Application for Bail by Baker - [2020] VSC 460

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0161

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Andrew BAKER

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 July 2020
DATE OF ORDERS:	23 July 2020
DATE OF REASONS:	28 July 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by Baker
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 460

---

CRIMIMAL LAW – Application for bail – Exceptional circumstances not established – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms S Thomas	Tait Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr P Bourke	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 23 July 2020 I refused an application for bail by Andrew Baker (‘the applicant’). I indicated that I would provide my reasons which follow.

The applicant is charged with the murder of his former partner, Sarah Gatt, whose badly decomposed body was found by police in the bathtub of her Kensington home on 3 January 2018.

The applicant was charged on 15 December 2019, following a protracted investigation into the circumstances of Ms Gatt’s death. He has been in custody since his arrest. On 10 July 2020, he filed an application for bail in this Court.[1] This matter is next listed in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for a committal mention on 3 August 2020.[2]
[1]Only this Court, or a court committing a person for trial, can grant bail to a person accused of murder. See the Bail Act 1977, s 13(2) (‘the Act’).
[2]The committal mention has previously been adjourned twice to allow the applicant’s solicitors and counsel additional time to review the hand-up brief.

At the time of the alleged murder, said to have occurred between 19 and 23 April 2017, the applicant was subject to a full no-contact Family Violence Intervention Order (‘FVIO’) naming Ms Gatt as the protected person. He was also on bail for charges arising from two separate family violence incidents where Ms Gatt was the complainant.[3] Those charges were dismissed on 7 January 2019 following Ms Gatt’s death.[4]
[3]Particularly, he was charged with trespass, unlawful assault and contravening a FVIO intending to cause harm or fear in the first matter. In the second, he was charged with false imprisonment (common law), making a threat to kill, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, unlawful assault and contravening a FVIO.
[4]Until recently, the applicant was also facing Commonwealth charges with respect to his continued receipt of Ms Gatt’s Centrelink payments in the 10 months following her death. These charges were withdrawn on 10 July 2020.

The applicable legislation

For the purposes of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), murder is a Schedule 1 offence.[5] It follows that bail must be refused unless the Court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[6] The applicant bears the burden of discharging this onus.[7] In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court…

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 Baker

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail by Baker [2020] VSC 460
Case: [2020] VSC 460
Decision Date: 28 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of an application for bail by a person named Baker was heard. The applicant, Baker, was in custody awaiting trial on criminal charges. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted the grant of bail. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's circumstances met the criteria for bail as outlined in the relevant legislation.

The court examined the nature and seriousness of the charges against Baker, the risk of flight if released, the impact of detention on the applicant, and any other relevant factors. Baker needed to establish that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail. The court considered the evidence presented, including the submissions from both the prosecution and the applicant's legal representative. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had not successfully demonstrated that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant bail.

Consequently, the court determined that the application for bail should be refused. The court was satisfied that the applicant did not meet the criteria for bail under the circumstances presented. The court's decision was based on the seriousness of the charges and the lack of exceptional circumstances that would justify the release of Baker on bail. The orders of the court were that the application for bail was refused, and Baker would remain in custody awaiting trial.

Orders