Re EP - [2024] VSC 827

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2024 0277

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by EP
BETWEEN:

EP Applicant

v

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent

---

JUDGE:

Champion J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

5 December 2024

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

20 December 2024

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Re EP

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2024] VSC 827

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Dangerous driving causing serious injury — Reckless conduct endangering serious injury — Theft of motor vehicle — Failure to stop for an accident resulting in serious injury — Driving as a learner without an appropriate supervisor driver — Applicant drove vehicle on the wrong side of the road colliding head on with another vehicle — Injured passenger in applicant’s vehicle suffering paralysis from chest down — Child applicant — No criminal history — Exceptional circumstances demonstrated — Unacceptable risk demonstrated — Application refused — Bail Act 1977.
---

APPEARANCES:
Counsel Solicitors

For the Applicant Mr D Thomas Victoria Legal Aid

For the Respondent -- Mr G Carr, Victoria Police
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction

1 By application dated 20 November 2024, EP [‘the applicant’] applies for a grant of bail from this Court under the Bail Act 1977 [‘the Act’]. The applicant is a 17 year old child, whose application relates to the following charges said to have occurred on 27 September 2024:

(a) Dangerous driving causing serious injury;

(b) Reckless conduct endangering serious injury;

(c) Theft of a motor vehicle;

(d) Failure to stop for an accident resulting in serious injury; and

(e) Driving as a learner without an appropriate supervisor driver.

2 At the oral hearing, the prosecution advised that four other charges (charges 5 through 8 in the applicant’s affidavit in support of an application for bail) were anticipated to be withdrawn. I have not therefore considered these charges in this ruling. I note for completeness however that they relate to an alleged attempted theft and a subsequent assault.

3 The applicant is currently bailed, or on summons, for several other matters involving, amongst other alleged offending, aggravated burglary, aggravated home invasion, theft of a motor vehicle and arson. This offending is alleged to have occurred in August and September 2024.

4 The applicant is currently remanded at Parkville Youth Justice Centre.

Relevant procedural history

5 The applicant has twice applied for bail in the Children’s Court at Bendigo on 14 October and 4 November 2024. Both applications were refused.

The alleged offending

6 At 5:30am on 26 September 2024, it was reported to police that a white Toyota Corolla had been stolen from a residential carport in a small town in the north west of Victoria.

7 On 27 September 2024 at approximately 1:50am, it is alleged that the applicant, with three or four others, unlocked and rummaged through a VW Golf Sedan in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The owner of the…

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 EP

Details

AGLC: Re EP [2024] VSC 827
Case: [2024] VSC 827
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re EP, the applicant sought bail following an incident involving dangerous driving causing serious injury. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The applicant, a child, was charged with reckless conduct endangering serious injury, theft of a motor vehicle, and failure to stop for an accident resulting in serious injury. Additionally, the applicant was charged with driving as a learner without an appropriate supervisor driver. The incident involved the applicant driving a vehicle on the wrong side of the road, resulting in a head-on collision with another vehicle. A passenger in the applicant's vehicle suffered paralysis from the chest down.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977 and whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the grant of bail. The court considered the severity of the charges, the risk of reoffending, and the safety of the community. The court also examined the exceptional circumstances demonstrated by the applicant, including the absence of a criminal history and the applicant's age.

The court found that while there were exceptional circumstances demonstrated by the applicant, the risk of reoffending was unacceptable. The court determined that the seriousness of the charges, coupled with the risk of causing further harm, outweighed the exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the application for bail was refused. The court emphasised the need to protect the safety of the community and to deter similar conduct in the future.

The court made no orders for bail and directed that the applicant remain in custody until further court proceedings.

Orders