Re Brown - [2020] VSC 870

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0335

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by DAVID BROWN

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Brown
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 870

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Aggravated burglary, making threat to kill, stalking, trespass, criminal damage, aggravated assault, use of a carriage service to menace, harass and offend, and theft – Requirement to show compelling reason justifying grant of bail – Whether compelling reason exists justifying grant of bail – Whether an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person or committing an offence while on bail – Compelling reason not established – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977, ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms J McGarvie	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms H Baxter	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is currently facing the following charges:

·aggravated burglary, contrary to s 77(1) of the Crimes Act 1958;
·making a threat to kill, contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act;
·stalking, contrary to s 21A(1) of the Crimes Act;
·trespass, contrary to s 9(1)(e) of the Summary Offences Act 1966;
·criminal damage (3 charges), contrary to s 197 of the Crimes Act;
·aggravated assault of a female (2 charges), contrary to s 24(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act;
·use of a carriage service to menace, contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth);
·use of a carriage services to harass, contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code;
·use of a carriage service to offend, contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code;
·unlicensed driving, contrary to s 18 of the Road Safety Act 1986;
·driving a vehicle causing loss of traction, contrary to s 65A of the Road Safety Act; and
·theft, contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act.

The offences with which the applicant is charged, are alleged to have occurred between 20 September 2020 and 12 October 2020. The aggravated burglary is alleged to have occurred on 10 October 2020. The applicant was arrested and charged on 14 October 2020. He has been in custody since then.

On 20 November 2020, an application for bail was refused in the Magistrates’ Court on the basis that there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would commit an offence while on bail and/or endanger the safety or welfare of any person. On 1 December 2020, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court. Having been accused of a Schedule 2 offence within the meaning of s 3 of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) — aggravated burglary[1] — pursuant to…

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 Brown

Details

AGLC: Re Brown [2020] VSC 870
Case: [2020] VSC 870
Decision Date: 21 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Brown, the respondent, a person accused of multiple serious criminal offences, applied for bail. The applicant faced charges including aggravated burglary, making a threat to kill, stalking, trespass, criminal damage, aggravated assault, using a carriage service to menace, harass and offend, and theft. The case was heard in the relevant court, where the primary issue was whether there were compelling reasons to justify the grant of bail. Additionally, the court had to determine if granting bail posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person or of the applicant committing an offence while on bail.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the charges, the applicant’s criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offences. It was noted that the applicant had a history of violence and had been charged with numerous serious offences, indicating a propensity for such behaviour. The court also evaluated the evidence presented regarding the risk of the applicant reoffending or endangering others if released on bail. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any compelling reasons that would justify granting bail. Furthermore, the potential risk to public safety and the likelihood of reoffending were deemed unacceptable.

Based on the analysis, the court concluded that bail should be refused. The court’s reasoning was that the serious nature of the charges and the applicant’s history of violence presented a significant risk to public safety. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion under the Bail Act 1977 to refuse the application for bail, considering the compelling reasons and risks outlined in the statute. The final orders of the court were that the application for bail was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for bail is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.