Re Application for Bail by Cindy Anne Taylor - [2015] VSC 777

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0130

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by CINDY ANNE TAYLOR

---

JUDGE:	JANE DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 September 2015
DATE OF RULING:	24 September 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by Cindy Anne Taylor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 777

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant at risk of re-offending – Nature of instant offending not of high level of seriousness – Prosecution case weak – Conditions sufficiently address risk of re-offending – Applicant remanded for significant period – Bail granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Dempsey and Mr L Richter	Stary Norton Halphen

For the Respondent

P McKimmie

Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

The applicant, Cindy Taylor, applies for bail following her remand in custody on 5 August 2015 from the Magistrates’ Court.

She was born on 16 October 1967 and is aged 47.

She was remanded following being charged with the offence of Contravene Final Personal Safety Intervention Order pursuant to s 100 of the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (Vic).

Background

The circumstances which led to the refusal of bail and remand in custody in the lower court are set out in the affidavit of the informant, Senior Constable Wilkins, sworn on 6 September 2015.

The applicant has had a long-standing obsession with the principal complainant, Mr Andrew Pappas, which has involved harassment of him, his parents, Mr Chris Pappas and Mrs Polexini Pappas, who are the other complainants, and even a former girlfriend of Andrew Pappas. Andrew Pappas has been the main target of the obsessive behaviour of the applicant.

More recent events relevant to this obsessive behaviour include that, on 31 March 2014, the applicant was alleged to have sent a Facebook friend request to the principal complainant’s new Facebook account, thereby engaging in stalking and acting in breach of the Final Personal Safety Intervention Order (‘Final PSIO’) that had been issued to protect the principal complainant. The Final PSIO had been originally issued as an Interim Personal Safety Intervention Order (‘Interim PSIO’) on 24 January 2013, concomitantly with orders issued in respect of the principal complainant's parents (together the ‘PSIOs’). This Interim PSIO was made final on 4 December 2013 and is to expire on 4 December 2018.

The applicant had been previously arrested, interviewed, and charged on 23 July 2013 with Stalking and Contravene Interim Personal Safety Intervention Order, relating to numerous cyber-entries on social media sites about the principal complainant, his family, and his former girlfriend, posted between January and July 2013.

When the applicant was arrested on 23 July 2013, she was remanded in custody and remained in prison until 18 October 2013.

18 October 2013 conviction

On that date, she was self-represented at the Ringwood Magistrates’ court and applied for bail, but then pleaded guilty to the…

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 Application for Bail by Cindy Anne Taylor 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: [2015] VSC 777
Decision Date: 24 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cindy Anne Taylor applied for bail in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, contesting her continued detention. The applicant was charged with multiple offences including assault and theft, though the prosecution’s case was described as weak. The central issue for the court was whether bail should be granted considering the risk of re-offending, the nature of the alleged offences, and the applicant's time spent in remand. The court assessed the risk factors, including the severity of the alleged crimes, the strength of the prosecution’s case, and the potential impact on the applicant if released on bail.

The Supreme Court determined that the nature of the alleged offences, while serious, did not reach a level of gravity that would warrant continued detention without bail. The court noted that the prosecution’s case appeared weak, which further supported the likelihood of an acquittal. Additionally, the court found that the proposed bail conditions were sufficient to mitigate the risk of re-offending. The applicant had already spent a considerable period in remand, which was a significant factor in favour of granting bail. The court balanced these considerations and concluded that the applicant was suitable for bail, subject to the specified conditions.

Accordingly, the court granted the application for bail, allowing the applicant to be released pending the outcome of her trial. The conditions of bail included regular check-ins with a bail supervisor, a curfew, and restrictions on contact with certain individuals. The court also ordered that the applicant reside at a specified address and refrain from any activities that could be construed as interfering with the course of justice. These measures were deemed adequate to manage the risk of re-offending and ensure the applicant’s appearance in court.

Orders