Re Application for Bail by Milad Khaia - [2015] VSC 778

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0160

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by MILAD KHAIA

---

JUDGE:	JANE DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 November 2015
DATE OF RULING:	23 November 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by Milad Khaia
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 778

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for Bail – Aggravated Burglary – Show cause situation – Whether unacceptable risk – Application refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 4(2)(d), 4(3), 4(4)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms N Kaddeche	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

For the Respondent

Mr B Nibbs

Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Background

On 28 October 2015, the applicant, Milad Khaia, was committed for trial to the County Court sitting at Melbourne.

He was committed on the following charges:

(a) Aggravated Burglary – Firearm (charge 4);

(b) Two charges of Intentionally Cause Injury (charges 5 and 6);

(c) Unlawful Assault (charge 7);

(d) Prohibited Person Possess a Firearm (charge 8);

(e) Possess Cannabis (charge 9);

(f) Possess Methyl Amphetamine (charge 10);

(g) Possess Drug of Dependence – Prescription Drug (charge 11);

(h) Without Approval Manufacture/Store Unauthorised Explosives (charge 12);

(i) Two charges of Recklessly Cause Injury (charges 13 and 14);

(j) Reckless Conduct Endanger Life (charge 15); and

(k) Reckless Conduct Endanger Serious Injury (charge 16).

There are two co-accused, also on remand, for these offences: Mr Richard De Luca and Mr Dimi Sovolos.

Mr De Luca has been committed for trial to the County Court without bail, and Mr Sovolos is awaiting a committal hearing.

The case is listed for a final directions date of 6 July 2016 and for a trial date of 1 August 2016.

A previous application was made for bail on 28 October 2015 before the committing Magistrate, but bail was refused on the bases that the applicant had not shown cause why his detention in custody was not justified, and that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of committing offences whilst on bail.

The applicant is 25 years of age, having been born on 1 January 1990.

He applies for bail before me on the charges to be heard in August next year.

He has no other outstanding charges and has just completed a 30 day sentence of imprisonment. The applicant was on bail for the offences for which he has now served a term of imprisonment, and those offences were dealt with by a consolidated plea at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court on 28 August 2015.

Charges which proceeded to conviction included: driving whilst suspended, handling stolen goods, and obtaining property by deception.

A charge of trafficking a drug of dependence was withdrawn by police at the time of the plea hearing.

Circumstances of offences

The charges that the applicant now faces, which arise from an incident on 19 March 2015 at a residential address in Malvern…

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 Milad Khaia 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: [2015] VSC 778
Decision Date: 23 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Application for Bail by Milad Khaia, the applicant sought bail in relation to charges of aggravated burglary, which involved the use of a weapon. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if granted bail. This was considered in light of the applicant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offence.

The court examined various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant's previous criminal record, and the likelihood of reoffending. It also considered the potential impact of the offence on the community and the interests of justice. The court held that the seriousness of the offence, coupled with the applicant's criminal history, indicated an unacceptable risk to the community if bail was granted. The court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the circumstances of the case were exceptional and warranted the grant of bail.

The court ultimately refused the application for bail, determining that the unacceptable risk to the community outweighed the applicant's right to liberty. The decision was based on the principles set out in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), specifically sections 4(2)(d), 4(3), and 4(4). These sections guide the court in assessing the risk posed by the applicant and the balance between the applicant's rights and the community's safety. The court's decision was that the applicant should remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Orders