Re Dobrosavljevic - [2009] VSC 170

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1424 of 2009

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by DALIBOR DOBROSAVLJEVIC

DALIBOR DOBROSAVLJEVIC	Applicant
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 April 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In the Matter of an application for bail by Dalibor Dobrosavljevic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 170

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated burglary – Campaign by applicant and co-accused against victim – Alleged offences committed while on bail – Delay – Rehabilitation by applicant – Whether applicant has shown cause – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 4(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff appeared in person
For the Respondent	Ms F Dalziel	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

In this matter the applicant, Dalibor Dobrosavljevic, makes an application for bail. The applicant has appeared in person. On behalf of the Director Ms F Dalziel of counsel has appeared.

The applicant has been charged on three presentments in respect of a number of offences. The first presentment concerns charges of burglary and theft alleged to have occurred on 4 December 2006. The second presentment concerns charges of armed robbery, kidnapping and burglary alleged to have been committed by the applicant in company with Waleed Haddara and Jerome Berryman between 25 January and 29 January 2007. The third presentment alleges that the applicant committed, amongst other matters, aggravated burglary, the offence of recklessly endangering life and being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm on 9 April 2007. Each of those offences are alleged to have been committed in relation to a Mr John Kripintiris.

It is not necessary for the purposes of this application for me to rehearse at any length the background to the offences, but a brief summary will be sufficient. For that purpose I am indebted to the careful affidavit sworn by the Crown instructor, Mr Rooney, which itself has been derived from a very thorough summary prepared by Detective Sergeant Rodney Arthur of the Crime Task Operations Unit.

The first presentment alleges that on 4 December 2006 the applicant burgled Mr Kripintiris’ family home at Altona. It is alleged that he broke and entered into those premises, cut the alarm and then ransacked them. In the course of that burglary it is alleged that he stole items worth $20,000 and also caused damage to the value of $4,000 to the premises.

The second presentment, relating to the offences alleged to have been committed between 25 and 29 January 2007, concern the kidnapping and abduction of Mr Kripintiris from his car in a public road by Mr Haddara, Mr Berryman and the applicant acting in concert. It is alleged that over the next four days Mr Kripintiris was taken against his will to two addresses. During that period of time a number of…

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 Dobrosavljevic

Details

AGLC: Re Dobrosavljevic [2009] VSC 170
Case: [2009] VSC 170
Decision Date: 28 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dobrosavljevic was an applicant seeking bail in relation to serious criminal charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery, and aggravated burglary. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated cause under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) to warrant the reconsideration of bail conditions or refusal of bail, considering the gravity of the alleged offences and the circumstances in which they were committed.

The court found that the applicant had engaged in a concerted campaign against the victim, which culminated in the alleged offences. This included orchestrating the victim’s abduction and orchestrating subsequent burglaries and robberies. The court further noted that the offences were committed while the applicant was on bail for other charges, which indicated a disregard for the legal process and a propensity for reoffending. The delay in bringing the case to court and the applicant's limited progress in rehabilitation also weighed against the grant of bail. The court concluded that the seriousness of the alleged offences, the circumstances in which they were committed, and the risk of reoffending justified the refusal of bail.

The court emphasised the importance of public safety and the need to prevent further offending while the applicant awaits trial. Given these considerations, the court determined that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause to warrant a reconsideration of bail. The application for bail was accordingly dismissed.

Orders