Re Application for Bail by Taylor Griffin - [2020] VSC 312

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0110

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

– and –

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by Taylor Griffin

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by Taylor Griffin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 312

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for Bail – Whether Compelling reasons – Whether unacceptable risk – ss 4AA(3), 4C(1A) and 4C(2) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Adrian Lewin	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Neill Hutton	Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant, Taylor Griffin is a 26 year-old man who seeks bail in respect of nine charges arising out of an incident which occurred on 15 January 2020. (‘the Kingsville incident’). The applicant was charged by Detective Senior Constable McLuckie with the offences of Charge 1 Aggravated burglary (offensive weapon); Charge 2 Aggravated burglary (person present); Charge 3 Intentionally cause serious injury in circumstances of gross violence; Charge 4 Intentionally cause serious injury; Charge 5 Recklessly cause serious injury; Charge 6 Intentionally cause injury; Charge 7 Recklessly cause injury; Charge 8 Make threats to kill; Charge 9 Commit an indictable offence whilst on bail.

The victim in respect of Charge 3, 4, 5 and 8 is alleged to be MM. The victim in respect of Charge 6 and 7 is alleged to be BS. Self-evidently some of the charges are laid in the alternative.

The charges of aggravated burglary relate to the applicant’s attendance at 158 Chirnside Street, Kingsville which was the residence of BS and her father on 15 January 2020.

BS was in bed with her friend MM, when it is alleged that the accused entered as a trespasser and attacked MM with a crowbar to the arms and head causing him serious injury. The accused had been in a relationship with BS for approximately three months, but she alleges that she had recently ended the relationship.

By way of background it seems that BS was seeking to end her relationship with the applicant in January 2020, but he was in the habit of entering her home through an unlocked rear door. There were some text messages and a phone call between the two in the period leading up to the alleged offending.

It is not in dispute that on 15 January 2020 the applicant drove his black Nissan Navara vehicle to a location proximate to BS’s home around 6.45am in the morning and parked nearby. CCTV footage shows the applicant approaching the premises carrying a concealed item believed by police to be the crowbar. When he entered the property, it can be inferred that he had a crowbar with him. Once inside the house the applicant entered BS’s bedroom. BS and MM were asleep in bed. BS alleges in her police statement…

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 Taylor Griffin

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail by Taylor Griffin [2020] VSC 312
Case: [2020] VSC 312
Decision Date: 26 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taylor Griffin, the applicant, applied for bail in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking release from custody while awaiting trial on charges of armed robbery. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that bail should be denied due to the severity of the offence and the risk of reoffending. The primary legal issues before the court were whether there were compelling reasons to grant bail under section 4AA(3) of the Bail Act 1977 and whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community under sections 4C(1A) and 4C(2) of the Act.

The court considered the gravity of the alleged offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and the applicant's criminal history. It also examined the likelihood of the applicant appearing for trial and the potential impact of his release on the community. In weighing these factors, the court determined that compelling reasons to grant bail were not present, and that the risk of reoffending was significant. The applicant's criminal history, coupled with the nature of the alleged offence, led the court to conclude that he posed an unacceptable risk to the community. Consequently, the application for bail was refused.

The court emphasised the importance of public safety and the need to deter serious criminal behaviour. It found that the potential for the applicant to reoffend while on bail outweighed any arguments in favour of his release. Given the severity of the charges and the risk factors identified, the court concluded that it was not satisfied that bail could be granted without unacceptably endangering the safety of the community or undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system. The final orders of the court were that Taylor Griffin's application for bail was dismissed.

Orders