Re Buckingham - [2022] VSC 18

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECI 2021 0380

In the matter of the Bail Act 1977

and

In the matter of an application for bail by Lucas Buckingham

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 January 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 January 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Buckingham
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 18

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with reckless conduct endangering serious injury, assault and making threats to kill – Drug use and mental health concerns – Proposed bail to residential rehabilitation facility – Significant delay until trial – Compelling reasons established – Unacceptable risk not established – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4A, 4C, 5AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Singh	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Tom	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By application dated 21 December 2021 Lucas Buckingham, (‘the applicant’) applies for a grant of bail from this court.

The applicant was arrested on 7 November 2021 and is currently remanded in custody on three charges of reckless conduct endangering serious injury;[1] three charges of assault (common law); and three charges of making threats to kill.[2] The charges relate to alleged family violence offending against his then partner (‘the complainant’) and her two young children.
[1]Contrary to s 23 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[2]Contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). These charges were filed after the applicant’s remand.

The current remand period is the applicant’s first time in custody. He is not currently, nor was he at the time of the alleged offending, subject to charges in any other matter. He has a criminal history which is limited and bears little practical relevance to the current application.

The applicant has been twice refused bail in the Latrobe Valley Magistrates’ Court. On 8 November 2021, he was refused bail on the basis he was an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any person.[3] Later, on 14 December 2021, he was refused bail on the basis that following the laying of the threatening to kill charges he had not shown a compelling reason justifying the grant of bail, and was considered to be an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any person and committing an offence on bail.
[3]The applicant was, at that time, considered to be prima facie entitled to bail as the threat to kill charges had at that stage not been laid.

On 12 November 2021, a Magistrate uplifted the charges against the applicant to the indictable stream. On the same day the court made an interim family violence intervention order (‘FVIO’) against the applicant protecting the complainant and her two children which contained full no-contact conditions. The FVIO was varied on 20 December 2021 — due to the complainant being pregnant with the applicant’s child — in order to allow…

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 Buckingham

Details

AGLC: Re Buckingham [2022] VSC 18
Case: [2022] VSC 18
Decision Date: 25 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the applicant, Buckingham, and the state. Buckingham was charged with reckless conduct endangering serious injury, assault and making threats to kill. The dispute arose from Buckingham’s application for bail, which was opposed by the state. The matter was heard in the ACT Magistrates Court. The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had established compelling reasons for bail and whether there were unacceptable risks to the community if bail was granted. The applicant argued that there were compelling reasons for bail, including the significant delay until the trial and his drug use and mental health concerns. The state opposed bail, arguing that there was an unacceptable risk to the community if Buckingham was granted bail. The court found that the applicant had established compelling reasons for bail, including the significant delay until the trial and his drug use and mental health concerns. The court also found that the unacceptable risk to the community was not established. Therefore, the court granted the applicant bail to a residential rehabilitation facility. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Bail Act 1977, including sections 1B, 3AAA, 4A, 4C, and 5AAA. The court also considered the principles set out in R v Lee and the case of R v Burgess. The final orders of the court were that the applicant be granted bail to a residential rehabilitation facility, subject to certain conditions.

Orders