Re Application for Bail by RS - [2013] VSC 350

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT

S CR 0120 of 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by RS

---

JUDGE:	ELLIOTT J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 July 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 July 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by RS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 350

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail applicant at risk of reoffending — Nature of offending not grave — Applicant a juvenile — Possibility sentence if convicted would be significantly shorter than period on remand — Bail granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T M Marsh	Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr M I Grant	The Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is 16 years and 2½ months old. Until very recently, he had no criminal record. However, he now finds himself charged with a number of offences:

(1)4 counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception.
(2)3 counts of obtaining property by deception.
(3)1 count of handling stolen goods.
(4)1 count of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
(5)5 counts of theft from a motor vehicle.
(6)2 counts of attempted theft from a motor vehicle.
(7)1 count of theft.
(8)1 count of possessing a prohibited weapon.
(9)3 counts of attempt to obtain property by deception.

It is alleged the first of these offences was committed on 14 April 2013. Many of these offences relate to the same incidents. As is set out in more detail below, there have been 3 occasions where the applicant has been arrested for committing various of the offences listed above.

A brief chronology of the applicant’s detention and previous bail history is as follows:

(1)On 7 May 2013, the applicant was arrested and charged for events between 17 April 2013 and 6 May 2013. Bail was granted by police subject to certain conditions.
(2)On 9 May 2013, the applicant was arrested and charged for offences alleged to have occurred between 14 April 2013 and 2 May 2013. He was again granted bail by police on the same conditions.
(3)On 14 May 2013, it is alleged the applicant breached his curfew (being one of the conditions previously imposed). He was re‑bailed at the Children’s Court.
(4)On 3 June 2013, the applicant was arrested and charged in relation to an offence alleged to have occurred on that day. He was remanded in custody until 4 June 2013.
(5)On 4 June 2013, the applicant was granted bail by the Children’s Court. Again, conditions were imposed.
(6)On 5 June 2013, the applicant was arrested for breaching conditions of bail (again concerning the curfew imposed). He was remanded in custody until 12 June 2013.
(7)On 12 June 2013, the applicant was granted bail by the Children’s Court.
(8)On 26 June 2013, the applicant was arrested and charged with further offences. On that day he was remanded in custody…

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 RS

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail by RS [2013] VSC 350
Case: [2013] VSC 350
Decision Date: 10 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Application for Bail by RS, the applicant, a juvenile, sought bail from the court. The applicant had been charged with a number of offences, including drug possession, theft, and assault. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing that the nature of the offending was serious, and that the applicant was a flight risk. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

The central issue before the court was whether the applicant was likely to reoffend if released on bail. The court considered the nature of the offences, the age of the applicant, and the potential sentence if convicted. The court also took into account the fact that the period the applicant had spent on remand was significantly longer than the potential sentence if convicted. The court noted that the applicant had a clean criminal record prior to these offences and had expressed remorse for their actions.

The court found that the applicant was not at significant risk of reoffending, given the nature of the offences and the potential sentence if convicted. The court also found that the applicant was not a flight risk, as they had strong ties to the community and had expressed a desire to attend school and engage in positive activities if released on bail. The court granted bail, subject to a number of conditions, including that the applicant reside at a specified address and report to a bail supervisor on a regular basis.

The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each bail applicant, including their age, criminal history, and potential sentence if convicted. The court also emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of the applicant with the need to protect the community and ensure that justice is served. The final orders of the court included the release of the applicant on bail, subject to the conditions outlined above.

Orders