Re De Camillis - [2020] VSC 761

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0274

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by DANIEL DE CAMILLIS

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 November 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 November 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re De Camillis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 761

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Family violence offending – Long history of criminal offending, breaches of court orders, and breaches of bail – Availability of residential drug rehabilitation – Centrepiece of application – Whether realistic to think that applicant would comply – Exceptional circumstances not established – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused - Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4A, 4AA, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr L Richter	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr P Murphy	Legal Services Department, Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail on charges laid against him by the informant Senior Constable Talissa Croxford of intentionally causing serious injury (two charges), recklessly causing injury (two charges), aggravated assault of a female, common assault, assault with a weapon (two charges), threat to kill, unlawful assault, unlicensed driving, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (two charges), contravening a conduct condition of bail (three charges) and false imprisonment.

It is agreed between the parties that because the applicant is accused of Schedule 2 offences under the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) committed while he was on bail for a Schedule 2 offence, bail must be refused unless he satisfies the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.

Procedural background

The dates of the above alleged offences were 4 and 8 June 2020. The applicant was arrested and charged on 8 June 2020. He unsuccessfully applied for bail in the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 10 June 2020 and 30 September 2020. Bail was refused on both occasions because the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk.

Pending matters at the time of the alleged offences
Informant Murphy

Charges: Theft of a motor vehicle, handling stolen goods, theft , attempted theft , assault with a weapon

On 25 July 2019, the applicant allegedly entered a carport at a residence in Parkdale in a stolen vehicle and stole some copper piping. The occupant of the residence confronted the applicant, who threatened to kill him and attempted to slash him three times with a knife. After the confrontation, the applicant returned to the stolen vehicle and drove away. The complainant took a photograph of the vehicle as it departed. It was confirmed that the vehicle bore stolen number plates. The applicant was charged on 6 August 2019 and bailed by police. He was subject to this grant of bail at the time of the current offending. The matter is next listed on 18 January 2021 in the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court for…

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 De Camillis

Details

AGLC: Re De Camillis [2020] VSC 761
Case: [2020] VSC 761
Decision Date: 17 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re De Camillis involved the applicant, De Camillis, who was seeking bail. The dispute centred on the likelihood of the applicant complying with bail conditions, given his extensive history of criminal offending, breaches of court orders, and breaches of bail. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues for determination included whether the applicant could be reasonably expected to comply with bail, particularly in light of his history of non-compliance, and if there were exceptional circumstances that warranted granting bail.

The court examined the applicant's criminal history, which included multiple instances of breaching court orders and bail conditions. Despite the availability of residential drug rehabilitation, the court found that it was not realistic to think that the applicant would comply with bail conditions. The court concluded that the applicant represented an unacceptable risk of reoffending, particularly in relation to family violence. The court emphasised the need to protect potential victims, given the applicant's history of violence. The court found that exceptional circumstances had not been established, and thus, the application for bail was refused under the Bail Act 1977.

The reasoning of the court focused on the applicant's repeated failures to comply with legal obligations and the significant risk he posed to the community, particularly in relation to family violence. The court balanced the applicant's right to liberty against the need to protect potential victims and ensure public safety. Ultimately, the court determined that the applicant's history of non-compliance and the nature of his offences were compelling reasons to refuse bail. The court's decision was guided by the provisions of the Bail Act 1977, particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4A, 4AA, 4D, 4E, and 5AAAA. The court's final order was that the applicant's application for bail was refused.

Orders