Re application for bail by Luke Warren - [2023] VSC 98

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0029

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by LUKE WARREN	Applicant

---

JUDGE:	Niall JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 March 2023
DATE OF ORDERS:	3 March 2023
DATE OF REASONS:	3 March 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re application for bail by Luke Warren
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 98

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Whether unacceptable risk exists if applicant released on bail – No evidence or allegations of violence committed by applicant towards protected person – Risk of committing an offence can be moderated by conditions – Bail granted with conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Farrington	SLKQ Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr P Pathmaraj	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Luke Warren (‘the applicant’). He is on remand for, and seeks bail on, two sets of charges laid by Detective Senior Constable Robert Baker, which (taken together) are as follows:

(a) obtain property by deception (three charges);[1]
[1]Contrary to Crimes Act 1958, s 81(1).

(b) obtain financial advantage by deception (14 charges);[2]
[2]Contrary to Crimes Act 1958, s 82(1).

(c) theft;[3]

(d) failing to provide police with access to computers/data storage devices;[4] and

(e) attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception.[5]

[3]Contrary to Crimes Act 1958, s 74.

[4]Contrary to Crimes Act 1958, s 456AA(9).

[5]Contrary to Crimes Act 1958, s 82(1).

Procedural history

On 1 September 2022 the applicant was arrested and interviewed by informant Baker with respect to alleged deceptions. He was released pending summons. However, further investigations took place, and on 9 September 2022, the applicant was charged with nine deception offences and remanded (’the first proceeding’). That day, he made a self-represented application for bail before the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. Bail was granted by Magistrate Doherty and a surety of $20,000 imposed.

The applicant, however, was unable to meet the surety condition and remained in custody. He filed an application to vary his bail to remove the surety condition, but before that was heard, Detective Senior Constable Baker filed a further set of charges against the applicant. The further charges were listed as a second proceeding (‘the second proceeding’). A filing hearing for that proceeding was heard on 30 September 2022, the same date that the application to vary bail to remove the surety condition was listed. At that hearing, the prosecution sought to revoke the grant of bail in the first proceeding, and remand the applicant on the further charges in the second proceeding.

The matters were adjourned to 19 October 2022, and further to 2 November 2022. when, in the first proceeding, the application to vary bail was refused, and bail was revoked. Bail was refused in the second proceeding.

On 20 December 2022, the applicant made a further…

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 Warren

Details

AGLC: Re application for bail by Luke Warren [2023] VSC 98
Case: [2023] VSC 98
Decision Date: 3 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luke Warren applied for bail in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, facing charges that included drug trafficking and possession. The application hinged on whether there was an unacceptable risk if he were released on bail, particularly considering the risk of reoffending. The court had to determine whether the risk posed by Mr Warren to the community or a protected person was such that it outweighed the right to liberty inherent in bail.

The central legal issue was whether there was an unacceptable risk of reoffending if Mr Warren were released on bail. The prosecution argued that due to his criminal history and the nature of the charges, he posed a significant risk. Mr Warren, on the other hand, submitted that there was no evidence or allegations of violence towards a protected person and that any risk of reoffending could be mitigated through appropriate bail conditions. The court had to weigh the risk of reoffending against Mr Warren's right to liberty, considering the principles of justice and the likelihood of him appearing in court.

The court found that while there was a risk of reoffending, there was no evidence or allegations of violence against a protected person. The court acknowledged Mr Warren's criminal history but considered that the risk could be moderated by imposing stringent bail conditions. These included regular reporting to a bail supervision officer, adherence to a strict curfew, and abstaining from drug use. The court concluded that the risk could be managed through these conditions and granted bail with the specified terms.

Orders