Re Brown - [2022] VSC 166

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0392

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by ROHAN MICHAEL BROWN

---

JUDGE:	Lasry J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 January 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 January 2022
DATE OF REVISED REASONS:	4 April 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Brown
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 166

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail — Charges of stalking, using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, intimidating a law enforcement officer or family member of a law enforcement officer, harassing a witness, contravening a conduct condition of bail, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail and contravening a personal safety intervention order — Targeting police officers and other public servants — Exceptional circumstances conceded by the respondent — Unacceptable risk alleged — Applicant gave affirmed undertaking from witness box at hearing to desist from offending behaviour — Unacceptable risk not established — Bail granted — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 15AB(1)(b).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Respondent	Mr John Dickie	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for bail by Rohan Michael Brown (‘the applicant’), who is self-represented. By application filed in this Court on 24 December 2021, he seeks bail in relation to 51 charges brought by Senior Constable Simona Tuica (the ‘Tuica matter’), as follows:

(a) stalking (nine charges);

(b) using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence (nine charges);

(c) intimidating a law enforcement officer or a family member of a law enforcement officer (nine charges);

(d) harassing a witness (four charges);

(e) contravening a conduct condition of bail (10 charges)

(f) committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (nine charges); and

(g) contravening a personal safety intervention order (‘PSIO’).

The applicant is alleged to have committed the offending in the Tuica matter between 31 August 2020 and 11 August 2021. During that period, the applicant was on bail in respect of the following charges:

(a) stalking (three charges), and using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence (three charges) brought by Detective Senior Constable Iain Samson (the ‘Samson matter’); and

(b) contravening a conduct condition of bail, and harassing a witness (two charges) brought by Detective Senior Constable Andrew Russell (the ‘Russell matter’).

The applicant was granted bail in the Samson matter in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 3 August 2018, and in the Russell matter by me on 15 November 2019. The applicant remains on bail in both those matters.

Procedural history

The applicant has been in custody since his arrest in the Tuica matter on 11 August 2021. He was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 27 August 2021 on the basis that he was considered to be an unacceptable risk of committing…

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 [2022] VSC 166
Case: [2022] VSC 166
Decision Date: 18 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Brown involved the respondent, who was seeking bail in relation to a series of serious criminal charges. These included stalking, using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, intimidating a law enforcement officer or family member of such an officer, harassing a witness, contravening a conduct condition of bail, committing an indictable offence while on bail, and contravening a personal safety intervention order. The respondent was alleged to have targeted police officers and other public servants. The court was tasked with determining whether bail should be granted in light of the respondent's criminal history and the nature of the alleged offences.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent posed an unacceptable risk to the community if granted bail, and whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant the granting of bail despite the risk. The respondent conceded that exceptional circumstances existed, but the Crown argued that the risk to the community remained unacceptable. The court had to weigh these considerations against the respondent's right to liberty and the principle that bail should not be denied solely on the basis of the seriousness of the charges.

In deciding the matter, the court considered the respondent's undertaking from the witness box to desist from offending behaviour. The court found that the respondent had given an affirmed undertaking and that this, combined with the exceptional circumstances conceded, meant that the risk to the community was not unacceptable. The court also noted the respondent's lack of a prior criminal history and the potential impact of incarceration on the respondent's mental health. Consequently, the court granted bail with specific conditions designed to mitigate any risk to the community.

The court ordered that the respondent be released on bail subject to a range of conditions, including electronic monitoring, a curfew, and restrictions on contact with certain individuals. The respondent was also required to adhere to a strict bail schedule and to comply with all laws. The court's decision balanced the need to protect the community with the respondent's right to liberty, ultimately concluding that bail was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders