Re Application for Bail by Luke James - [2015] VSC 175

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 00038

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail by LUKE JAMES

---

JUDGE:	RUSH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 April 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by Luke James
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 175

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Whether applicant has shown cause as to why his detention is not justified – Whether the applicant poses an unacceptable risk that if released on bail he would commit further offences, endanger the safety or welfare of members of the public, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice – Whether the risk of the applicant re-offending is lessened in circumstances where the applicant on bail is subject to strict bail conditions – Bail granted subject to conditions – Bail Act1977 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms K. Ljubicic, Robert Stary Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr J. Kibel, Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Luke James, is making his third application for bail. Magistrate Larosa refused an in-person application for bail on 23 March 2015. Magistrate Larosa determined that the applicant had not shown cause as to why bail was justified. The applicant made a further application for bail after obtaining legal representation on 7, 8 and 9 April 2015. Magistrate Amour refused bail, determining that the applicant had not shown cause. The principal grounds for the refusal of bail were that there was an unacceptable risk the applicant would commit further offences and that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community.

The applicant was remanded in custody to appear before the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court on 1 May 2015.

I briefly refer to the relevant history. On 9 August 2013, the applicant was convicted of 11 offences, being the making counterfeit money, dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, two counts of failing to answer bail, disrupting a match/game/sport/event, contravening a Family Violence Safety Notice, intentionally destroying property, using cannabis, possessing a controlled weapon without exemption, intentionally damaging property, possession of amphetamine and possession of cannabis. The applicant received three Community Corrections Orders for a period of 16 months in respect of this offending. There was non-compliance in respect of these Orders, including the applicant’s non-attendance at mandatory appointments, failure at drug screening tests and the undertaking of 81 hours of community work. Furthermore, the applicant produced a falsified document purporting to be from his employer to explain his non-attendance at mandatory appointments.

On 15 August 2014 the applicant was arrested and charged with 8 further offences; trafficking methyl-amphetamine, possession of methyl-amphetamine, four counts of possession of a drug of dependence (prescription drug), possession of a prohibited weapon without exemption, possession of ecstasy, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, handling of stolen goods and possession of cannabis.…

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 Luke James

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail by Luke James [2014] VSC 175
Case: [2015] VSC 175
Decision Date: 30 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the application for bail by Luke James, the applicant sought to be released on bail pending the outcome of criminal charges against him. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant his release, or whether his detention was justified to protect the community and the integrity of the judicial process. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had shown cause as to why his detention was not justified and whether his release would pose an unacceptable risk of him committing further offences, endangering public safety, interfering with witnesses, or obstructing justice. The court also considered whether the imposition of strict bail conditions could mitigate the risk of re-offending. The applicant's legal team argued that he had a strong case for bail, citing his stable personal circumstances, employment history, and the fact that he had not previously breached any bail conditions. The prosecution countered that the seriousness of the charges warranted continued detention.

The court, after considering the submissions from both parties, determined that the applicant had made a compelling case for bail. It was noted that the risk of the applicant re-offending was significantly reduced if he adhered to strict bail conditions, which included a curfew, regular check-ins with a bail supervisor, and a prohibition on contact with certain individuals. The court found that these conditions were sufficient to manage the risk to the community. Consequently, the court granted the application for bail, subject to the specified conditions.

The final orders of the court mandated that Luke James be released on bail, subject to the conditions outlined, pending the resolution of the criminal charges against him. The court's decision was predicated on the finding that the risk of re-offending could be effectively managed through the implementation of the strict bail conditions.

Orders