| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2020 0121
| IN THE MATTER OF the Bail Act 1977 |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER OF an Application for Bail by Emmanuel DENG |
---
JUDGE: | COGHLAN JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 July 2020 |
DATE OF ORDERS: | 17 July 2020 |
DATE OF REASONS: | 16 October 2020 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Application for bail by Deng |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VSC 686 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for Bail – Whether exceptional circumstances exist – Applicant not an unacceptable risk – Bail granted.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr S Tovey | Galbally Parker Lawyers |
| For the Accused | Ms C Parkes | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
On 17 July 2020 I granted Emmanuel Deng’s (‘the applicant’) application for bail and said that I would publish my reasons. These are those reasons.
The application was first made returnable on 2 June 2020. The former solicitors for the applicant advised the Court that following instructions from the applicant’s half-brother, Mr Biel Gatluak, it was their intention to adjourn the application. They advised that Mr Gatluak was soon to relocate to Bairnsdale for work. The applicant’s solicitor requested an adjournment to confirm a new proposed bail address and organise youth support services. The matter was administratively adjourned to 26 June 2020. On 18 June 2020 the applicant’s new solicitors advised the court that a further adjournment was required to resolve some outstanding issues regarding the proposed accommodation for the applicant. The matter was further adjourned and proceeded on 17 July 2020.
The applicant is charged with affray, armed robbery, two counts of intentionally causing injury, theft of a motor vehicle, violent disorder and robbery (‘primary matter’). He is also being charged with contravening a Community Corrections Order (‘CCO’), having been on that order at the time of this offending (‘Dromart matter’).
Procedural History
All charges in the primary matter arise from events alleged to have occurred on 28 December 2019. The applicant was arrested and remanded on 8 January 2020, and charged the following day. He has been in custody since that date.
At the time of the alleged offending, he was subject to an 18-month CCO imposed in the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 8 November 2019 following conviction for violence, dishonesty and bail offences. As a result of the present allegations, he was charged on summons with contravening the CCO on 31 January 2020. On 21 May 2020, he was also remanded in relation to that matter.
The applicant has been refused bail on two occasions in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, namely 9 January 2020 and 7 April 2020. His first application was made in-person, however, he was legally represented at the further application. On both occasions, bail was refused on the basis that the applicant had failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail and, further, it was found that he was an unacceptable risk of the…
Continue reading Re Application for bail by Deng
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Application for bail by Deng [2020] VSC 686
- Case
- [2020] VSC 686
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the risk of reoffending. It also considered the applicant's ties to the community, including family and employment, as well as the potential impact of continued detention on the applicant and their family. The court found that, while the charges were serious, the applicant did not pose an unacceptable risk to the community, and exceptional circumstances did exist due to the significant personal and familial ties in Australia.
Ultimately, the court granted bail, recognising the applicant's strong ties to the community and the absence of an unacceptable risk. The decision emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each applicant, including their personal connections and the potential consequences of continued detention. The court also highlighted the need to balance the rights of the accused with the need to protect the community.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.