Re Dawas - [2025] VSC 209

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0055

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by BAKER DAWAS

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 April 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Dawas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 209

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – One charge of rape – Further charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice, intimidating a witness, and stalking – Latter offending allegedly committed while applicant on bail for the rape charge – Alleged victims of the latter charges are the rape complainant and her friend, to whom first complaint made – Disagreement on correct bail test – Respondent submits ‘exceptional circumstances’ on the basis that stalking is a Schedule 2 offence where the conditions of item 8(b) of Schedule 2 are met – Court not satisfied that the stalking charge properly fits within item 8(b) of Schedule 2 – Show compelling reason the appropriate test – Compelling reason not established – Unacceptable risk in any event, which cannot be mitigated by strict conditions – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4C-4E, 4AA, and Schedule 2.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms Belinda Franjic	Chambers Criminal Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms Angela Liantzakis, Solicitor Advocate	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail in respect of charges laid by two members of Victoria Police.

A charge of rape was laid by Detective Senior Constable Starbuck (‘the Starbuck matter’).

Subsequently, and while the applicant was on bail for the Starbuck matter, charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice (2 charges), harassing a witness (2 charges), intimidating a witness (3 charges) and stalking were laid by Detective Senior Constable Michael Pook (‘the Pook charges’). The alleged victims of the Pook charges are the complainant in the Starbuck matter and her friend, who is also a witness in that matter.[1]
[1]While the Starbuck complainant’s friend, EM, is a secondary complainant in the Pook matters, for clarity, any reference to ‘the complainant’ in this judgment refers to the primary alleged victim in both the Starbuck and Pook matters.

There is contention as to the test which applies to this application, pursuant to the provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’). The applicant contends that the applicable test is the ‘show compelling reason test’. The prosecution contends that the applicable test is the ‘exceptional circumstances test’. I will turn to a consideration of this matter shortly.

Procedural history

The alleged offending in the Starbuck matter occurred on 27 March 2015. On 3 August 2021, a pretext call occurred between the complainant and the applicant. In the call, which was recorded, the applicant made admissions to the crime of rape. The applicant was charged and bailed on his own undertaking on 28 April 2023.…

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 Dawas

Details

AGLC: Re Dawas [2025] VSC 209
Case: [2025] VSC 209
Decision Date: 22 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Dawas, the applicant faced charges of rape, attempting to pervert the course of justice, intimidating a witness, and stalking. The application for bail was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted bail, given the nature and severity of the charges against him, particularly in light of the alleged commission of additional offences while on bail for the initial rape charge.

The legal issues centred on the appropriate test for bail in this context and whether the applicant met the stringent criteria for release. The respondent argued that the stalking charge should be considered under the ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision of Schedule 2 of the Bail Act 1977, specifically item 8(b). However, the court found that the stalking charge did not properly fit within the specified criteria of item 8(b). Consequently, the court determined that the compelling reason necessary to justify bail was not established, and the risk of reoffending could not be mitigated by strict bail conditions.

The court ultimately concluded that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community, particularly to the alleged victims of the stalking and intimidation charges. Therefore, the application for bail was refused under the provisions of the Bail Act 1977, including sections 1B, 3AAA, 4C-4E, 4AA, and Schedule 2. The decision underscores the gravity of the charges and the court's duty to protect potential victims from further harm.

Orders