Re Application for bail by Constantinos Kremmos - [2017] VSC 512

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0157

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail by Constantinos KREMMOS

---

JUDGE:	WEINBERG ACJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 August 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 August 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for bail by Constantinos Kremmos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 512

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Aggravated burglary and other offences – Applicant in ‘show cause situation’, having been charged with aggravated burglary and indictable offence in the course of which the use of a firearm was threatened – Whether parity with co-offender who had been granted meant bail should be granted – Whether unacceptable risk of committing an offence whilst on bail and endangering the safety or welfare of members of the public – Applicant facing serious charges – Co-offender played lesser role in offence and had dependent children – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms J Hughes	Papa Hughes Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr S Ballek	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Constantinos Kremmos, aged 36, was arrested on the morning of 24 June 2017, and charged with the following offences:

(a) Aggravated burglary – intent to assault armed with a homemade shotgun, baseball bat and machete;

(b) Being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (two charges);

(c) Possession of a controlled weapon;

(d) Possession of a dangerous article;

(e) Intentionally causing injury;

(f) Theft;

(g) Theft of a motor vehicle;

(h) Driving whilst disqualified;

(i) Handling stolen goods;

(j) Possession of a prescribed precursor chemical (two charges).

These offences all arose out of an incident that occurred on the evening prior to his arrest, when the applicant and, it is said, two associates entered, as trespassers, a room occupied by the complainant in this matter. The applicant is alleged to have assaulted the complainant by striking him to the head with a hand-made shotgun, and to have threatened to harm the complainant’s family if he contacted police. The applicant and his co-accused are alleged to have stolen the complainant’s car and mobile phone.

It seems that the complainant had been in a relationship with the applicant’s co-accused, Kristen McMahon. As their relationship developed, they began to attend a number of ‘swingers parties’. The complainant filmed a number of their sexual acts together and with others, apparently with the consent of Ms McMahon.

It also seems that the complainant had only once met the applicant prior to the events of 23 June 2017. The incident that gave rise to the various charges brought against the applicant is alleged to have been caused by a dispute between Ms McMahon and the complainant over certain property, and the complainant’s having distributed the intimate images and videos of her, which he had taken, to her family and friends.

Police were called immediately after 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 Constantinos Kremmos 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: [2017] VSC 512
Decision Date: 29 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Constantinos Kremmos, sought bail in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, facing charges including aggravated burglary and threatening the use of a firearm during the commission of an indictable offence. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant, who was in a show cause situation due to the gravity of the charges against him, should be granted bail. This decision involved weighing the principle of parity with a co-offender who had already been granted bail against the potential risk posed by the applicant to the safety and welfare of the public.

The court examined the principles of parity and whether the applicant should be treated similarly to his co-offender, who had been granted bail. The court also considered whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk if released on bail, taking into account the seriousness of the charges and the potential impact on the public. Given the applicant's significant criminal history and the nature of the offences, the court found that the risk to public safety was too high to warrant bail.

The court ultimately decided that granting bail would not be appropriate due to the unacceptable risk to the public, despite the co-offender's earlier release. The court's decision was influenced by the applicant's serious criminal record and the nature of the alleged offences, which involved threats of firearm use. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of protecting the public from potential harm and ensuring that bail decisions are made with careful consideration of the risks involved. The application for bail was therefore refused.

Orders