Re Application for bail by Zreika - [2020] VSC 648

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0221

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Noah Zreika

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 September 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 September 2020
DATE OF REASONS:	2 October 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for bail by Zreika
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 648

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Exceptional circumstances established – No unacceptable risk – Bail granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms R Avis	Sarah Tricarico Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms T Bolton	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 23 September 2020 I granted bail to Noah Zreika (‘the applicant’). I indicated that I would provide my reasons which follow.

Introduction

On 31 March 2020, the applicant was arrested and charged with a large number of offences arising out of multiple connected aggravated burglaries and thefts on residential and commercial premises across Melbourne (‘Informants Smith and Chalmers matters’). The applicant was initially granted bail by the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 1 April 2020 however bail was later revoked on 11 May 2020. The applicant has been in custody since that day. By notice dated 8 September 2020 he applied for a grant of bail in this Court.

The applicant was refused bail at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 19 August 2020 in the Informants Smith and Chalmers matters on the basis of an unacceptable risk that the applicant would commit an offence while on bail, endanger the safety or welfare of any person or interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice in any matter.

The matter is next listed on 14 December 2020 for committal case conference and committal mention at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

The matters for which the applicant is on remand and seeks bail are:

(a)Informant Senior Constable Smith (‘the Informant Smith matter’) offence dates between 15 February and 28 March 2020
·Burglary (17 counts);
·Theft (16 counts);
·Criminal damage (22 counts);
·Aggravated burglary (person present) (five counts);
·Handling stolen goods (two counts);
·Possessing a drug of dependence (cocaine and cannabis) (two counts);
·Dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime;
·Attempted aggravated burglary;
·Recklessly causing serious injury; and
·Theft of a motor vehicle.

(b)Informant Senior Constable Chalmers (‘the Informant Chalmers matter’) – offence dates between 31 March and 21 April 2020
·Theft of a motor vehicle;
·Burglary;
·Criminal damage (two counts);
·Attempted burglary; and
·Contravening a conduct condition of bail.

The applicant was originally charged in both the informants Smith and Chalmers matters in the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction. However part of the offending in both matters is alleged to have occurred prior to the applicant’s eighteenth birthday. As such those matters fall within the Children’s Court jurisdictions and were subsequently withdrawn from the Magistrates’ Court and re-filed in the Children’s Court.[1]
[1]On…

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 Zreika

Details

AGLC: Re Application for bail by Zreika [2020] VSC 648
Case: [2020] VSC 648
Decision Date: 23 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Application for Bail by Zreika involved the applicant, Zreika, seeking bail in a criminal proceeding before the Court. Zreika faced serious charges, and the prosecution opposed the bail application on the grounds that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if released. The court was required to weigh the risk to the community against the applicant's right to liberty.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether exceptional circumstances existed that warranted granting bail despite the risk to the community. The court considered various factors, including the nature and gravity of the charges, the strength of the prosecution's case, the applicant's criminal history, and any other relevant circumstances that might mitigate the risk of reoffending or flight. The court also had to determine whether any conditions could be imposed to sufficiently address the risk to the community.

After thorough consideration, the court found that exceptional circumstances did exist in this case, allowing for bail. The court was satisfied that the risk to the community was not unacceptable, primarily due to the applicant's compliance with strict bail conditions, including electronic monitoring, a curfew, and residence restrictions. The court concluded that these measures would sufficiently mitigate any risk to the community while allowing the applicant the opportunity to prepare their defence.

The court granted the application for bail, subject to the specified conditions. The decision underscores the importance of carefully assessing each application on its merits and the potential for bail even in cases involving serious charges, provided that adequate safeguards are in place to protect the community.

Orders