CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Children’s Court – Charges of robbery, affray, theft, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, assault by kicking, assault in company, unlawful assault, discharge missile, attempted theft, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, attempted robbery, assault with intent to rob – Applicant required to show exceptional circumstances – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant
Mr M. Allen
Patrick Allen Law
For the Respondent
Mr N. Moran
Victoria Police
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
On 12 July 2018, CT (‘the applicant’) was arrested and charged by police with the offences of robbery (two counts), affray, theft (three counts), intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, assault by kicking, and assault in company. The charges arise out of events alleged to have occurred on 1 July 2018.
At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail and on summons in respect of six outstanding matters. He was also subject to a 12-month Youth Probation Order following a finding of guilt on 8 June 2018 for charges of affray, unlawful assault (two counts) and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.
In respect of the July charges, there is one known co-accused who was granted bail on 12 July 2018 at the Sunshine Children’s Court. It is alleged that there were two additional offenders also involved, however, they have not yet been identified.
The applicant has been in custody since the day of his arrest. On 10 August 2018, he applied to the Melbourne Children’s Court for bail, but was refused on 13 August 2018. He is presently 16 years old.
By an application dated 21 August 2018, the applicant has applied to this Court for a grant of bail. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on 21 August 2018 by the applicant’s solicitor, Patrick Allen.
The alleged offending
At approximately 12.40am on 1 July 2018, the two complainants were allegedly approached by the applicant while waiting to be picked up outside a residence in Melton West. They had attended a house party at the residence and were unknown to the applicant.
Also outside was a group of youths of African descent, including the co-accused. The complainants had met the co-accused earlier in the evening through a mutual friend.
While outside the residence the applicant allegedly made repeated demands for the first complainant’s mobile telephone in a threatening manner. The first complainant refused the demands and attempted to walk away. He was immediately surrounded by three other males, including the co-accused.
The prosecution case is that the group…
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 CT
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re CT [2018] VSC 559
Case
[2018] VSC 559
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the Children’s Court involved an application for bail by an individual who faced a multitude of serious charges. These charges included robbery, affray, theft, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, assault by kicking, assault in company, unlawful assault, discharge missile, attempted theft, committing an indictable offence while on bail, attempted robbery, and assault with intent to rob. The applicant was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant bail under the Bail Act 1977.
The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had met the threshold of demonstrating exceptional circumstances. This involved an evaluation of the gravity of the offences, the applicant's history, the risk of reoffending, and the potential impact on the community if bail were granted. The court considered the cumulative effect of the charges and the seriousness of the alleged actions.
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. The gravity of the offences, coupled with the risk of reoffending, outweighed any potential benefit of granting bail. Consequently, the application for bail was refused. The decision was grounded in the need to protect the community and ensure that justice was served, given the severity of the charges.
No further orders were made by the court beyond the refusal of bail. The applicant remained in custody pending further court proceedings.