Re Application for Bail By Jang Bir - [2014] VSC 160

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0038 of 2014

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by JANG JAMES BIR

---

JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 APRIL 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 APRIL 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re APPLICATION FOR BAIL BY JANG BIR
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 160

---

BAIL – show cause – whether unacceptable risk that applicant would fail to answer bail or reoffend if admitted to bail – bail refused – s 4 Bail Act 1977.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	The informant was represented by Inspector R Koo
For the Applicant	Ms D Lamovie	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

On 14 December 2013, the applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, fractures of his left leg and abrasions to his face. Initially admitted to the Alfred Hospital, he was discharged to inpatient rehabilitation on 21 December 2013. The applicant was discharged home on 7 January 2014 with TAC approval to undertake a six week multi-disciplinary outpatient rehabilitation program that would include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, neuropsychology and social work. He initially attended that program on 28 January 2014.

There were a number of outstanding warrants for the applicant’s arrest, and on 3 February 2014, he attended by appointment at the Dandenong police station and was remanded into custody.

The applicant faced a number of charges from separate occasions of offending laid on the information of six police officers, as well as proceedings for breach of a community based order. The charges he faced included shop theft of alcohol, failing to appear on bail, drunk in a public place, and assault charges. These offences had been committed between January 2012 and March 2013. The outstanding warrants for his arrest had been issued on occasions when he had failed to answer his summons or his bail.

An application for bail on 3 February 2014, made on his behalf by a lawyer, was refused. After Dr Samantha Kennedy, a specialist in rehabilitation medicine, produced a report regarding the applicant’s inpatient stay at the Victorian Rehabilitation Centre and the continuing treatment required, a further application for bail was made on 21 February 2014. That application was also refused on the grounds that there were no new facts or circumstances. I will return to Dr Kennedy’s report.

At the hearing before me, the applicant had been in custody on remand for 64 days. The applicant proposes to plead guilty to some charges and to contest others. There is a contest mention on 22 April 2014. I was informed that the contest is likely to be heard in early June 2014. If not admitted to bail, the applicant faces a period in custody on remand of a little over four months, provided this timetable is accurate.

Although s 4(1)(b) of the Bail Act 1977 provides…

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 Jang Bir

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail By Jang Bir [2014] VSC 160
Case: [2014] VSC 160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jang James Bir applied for bail in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, who had sustained serious injuries from a motor vehicle accident, faced multiple charges including theft, failing to appear on bail, drunk in a public place, and assault. These offences were committed between January 2012 and March 2013. The applicant had a history of failing to appear on bail and had accumulated numerous outstanding warrants for his arrest. Two previous bail applications were refused. The court had to determine whether the applicant could show cause why his detention in custody was not justified. The court examined the applicant's criminal history, his failure to comply with bail conditions and court summonses, and his alcohol dependency. The court also considered the severity of the alleged assault, the presence of DNA evidence linking the applicant to the crime scene, and the lack of evidence that the applicant had availed himself of rehabilitation programs in prison. The court concluded that the risk of the applicant reoffending if released on bail, or failing to answer his bail, was unacceptable. The court therefore refused the bail application.

The court ordered that Jang James Bir remain in custody.

Orders