Re Easson - [2017] VSC 565

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0199

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by SHANE EASSON

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 September 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 September 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Easson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 565

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Kidnapping, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, unlawful imprisonment, unlawful assaults (multiple counts), making threat to kill, threatening to inflict serious injury, unlawful assault with a weapon, reckless conduct placing person in danger of death – Show cause situation – Serious offending – No prior criminal history – Offending during a 12-hour period – Show cause situation – Whether unacceptable risk – Factors supporting grant of bail subject to strict conditions – Bail granted subject to strict conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Pickering	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr A S Dickenson	Giorgianni & Liang

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is currently facing charges of intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, unlawful imprisonment, unlawful assault (three charges), unlawful assault using an instrument (two charges), unlawful assault by kicking, threatening to inflict serious injury, unlawful assault with a weapon (a steak knife), making a threat to kill (two charges), kidnapping, common law assault and reckless conduct placing a person in danger of death. The charges all arise out of events alleged to have occurred over a 12-hour period on 2 April 2017 in relation to one complainant. They occurred at the home of the complainant. The complainant is the applicant’s wife, from whom he was at the time, and is, separated.

The applicant was arrested on, and has been in custody since, 2 April 2017. On 5 September 2017, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court. The applicant has previously been refused bail in respect of the present charges, in the Magistrates’ Court, on 11 May 2017 and 4 August 2017.

Having been charged with an indictable offence involving the use of an offensive weapon, the applicant accepts that, by reason of the operation of s 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), he is in a ‘show cause situation’. That is, in this case, the Court must refuse bail unless the applicant ‘shows cause why his detention in custody is not justified’.

The alleged offending

The applicant and the complainant met in 2013 and married in March 2016. The marriage broke down some months later, and the complainant moved out to her own apartment in November 2016.

The prosecution case is that, after a period of separation, the complainant took the applicant back into her apartment because he was homeless, suicidal and needed help to get back on his feet.

On 1 April 2017, the applicant told the complainant that he was in danger and needed $500. The complainant was persuaded to withdraw…

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 Easson

Details

AGLC: Re Easson [2017] VSC 565
Case: [2017] VSC 565
Decision Date: 20 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Easson involved the applicant, Easson, who faced numerous serious charges, including kidnapping, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, unlawful imprisonment, multiple counts of unlawful assault, making threats to kill, threatening to inflict serious injury, unlawful assault with a weapon, and reckless conduct placing a person in danger of death. These charges arose from a series of incidents that occurred over a 12-hour period. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was whether Easson should be granted bail in light of the gravity of the alleged offences. The court had to consider whether the risk of Easson reoffending or interfering with witnesses was unacceptable, given the severity of the charges and the lack of a prior criminal history.

The court considered several factors in determining whether to grant bail, including the nature and seriousness of the charges, the circumstances in which they were committed, the risk of reoffending, and the risk of interfering with witnesses. The prosecution argued that the serious nature of the charges and the potential danger Easson posed to the community made it imperative to deny bail. The defence submitted that Easson had no prior criminal history and that strict bail conditions could mitigate the risk of reoffending or witness interference. The court weighed these arguments and found that, while the charges were severe, the absence of a criminal history and the potential for strict bail conditions to manage the risks made it appropriate to grant bail subject to stringent conditions.

In its decision, the court acknowledged the gravity of the charges but concluded that it was possible to manage the risks associated with Easson's release through the imposition of strict bail conditions. These conditions included residence at a specified address, regular reporting to a police officer, electronic monitoring, a curfew, and restrictions on contact with certain individuals. The court determined that these measures were sufficient to address the concerns regarding the risk of reoffending and interference with witnesses, and thus, Easson was granted bail subject to these strict conditions. The court's decision emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect the community.

Orders