Re application for bail by Murray - [2023] VSC 266

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0087

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

---

JUDGE:	Niall JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 May 2023
DATE OF ORDER:	17 May 2023
DATE OF REASONS	19 May 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re application for bail by Murray
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 266

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Whether exceptional circumstances justify the grant of bail – Whether grant of bail would give rise to unacceptable risk – Real risk time on remand longer than any sentence imposed – Supports will provide some protection against further offending – Bail granted with conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Kats	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service
For the Respondent	Mr G Carr (solicitor)	Legal Services Department, Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 17 May 2023, at the conclusion of the hearing I granted the applicant bail on strict conditions. These are my reasons for making that order.

Mr Murray (‘the applicant’) is an 18 year old Aboriginal man. He seeks bail on 52 charges, filed by Detective Senior Constable Rhys Phillips on 25 April 2023:

(a) Contravene family violence interim intervention order (14 charges);

(b) Contravene bail conduct conditions (six charges);

(c) Persistent contravention of family violence intervention order (eight charges);

(d) Commit an indictable offence whilst on bail (10 charges);

(e) Contravene family violence final intervention order (12 charges);

(f) Aggravated burglary;

(g) Theft.

The applicant has remained in custody since his arrest on 25 April 2023.

On 28 April 2023, the applicant was refused bail at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on the basis that he failed to show exceptional circumstances, and that there was an unacceptable risk that he would commit an offence whilst on bail, endanger the safety or welfare of any person and interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice in any matter.

At the time of the alleged offending in the informant Phillips matter, the applicant was subject to bail in the following seven matters. Bail in respect of those matters has not been revoked. I have had regard to those matters, but the central issue is whether the applicant should be granted bail on the Phillips matters.

Informant Senior Constable Nathan Haymes

(a) Armed robbery (two charges);

(b) Assault (two charges).

Informant Detective Senior Constable Christopher Hammond

(a) Theft of motor vehicle;

(b) Commit indictable offence whilst on bail;

(c) Contravene bail conduct conditions.

Informant Senior Constable Matthew Waterson

(a) Contravene family violence interim intervention order.

Informant Senior Constable Jessie Coletti

(a) Contravene bail conduct conditions (six charges). These charges have been withdrawn.

Informant Constable Nicola Koliavu

(a) Contravene family violence interim intervention order;

(b) Contravene bail conduct conditions.

Informant Senior Constable Georgina Taylor

(a) Theft of motor vehicle;

(b) Handle/receive/retain stolen goods;

(c) Dangerous driving while pursued by police;

(d) Failure…

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 Murray

Details

AGLC: Re application for bail by Murray [2023] VSC 266
Case: [2023] VSC 266
Decision Date: 19 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Murray, the applicant sought bail from the court. Murray faced a criminal charge, and the primary issue before the court was whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant the grant of bail despite the potential risk of further offending. The court had to weigh the risk of further offending against the applicant’s right to liberty and the risk of time spent on remand being longer than any potential sentence imposed.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the evidence provided. It found that the exceptional circumstances in this case, including the support system available to Murray and the real risk that time on remand would be longer than any sentence imposed, outweighed the risk of further offending. The court was satisfied that the conditions of bail could sufficiently mitigate the risk of further offending and protect the community.

After thorough consideration, the court granted the application for bail, imposing specific conditions to ensure that Murray would comply with the terms and not pose a risk to the community. The conditions included regular check-ins with a support person, adherence to a curfew, and refraining from contact with certain individuals. The court was satisfied that these measures would adequately address the concerns regarding further offending and protect the community.

The court’s final orders included granting Murray bail subject to the imposed conditions. The applicant was required to comply with these conditions until the final determination of his criminal proceedings.

Orders