Re Eyles - [2024] VSC 477

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0166

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by RYAN EYLES

BETWEEN:

RYAN EYLES	Applicant
and
VICTORIA POLICE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 July 2024
DATE OF RULING:	9 August 2024
DATE OF REVISED REASONS:	13 August 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Eyles
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 477

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges relating to theft of motor vehicle and possession of firearm — Extensive and relevant criminal history — Aboriginality — Re Terei [2024] VSC 294 — Re Terei (No 3) [2024] VSC 423 — Strength of the prosecution case — Availability of CISP — Unacceptable risk — Bail refused — Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 3A, 4AA, 4AAA, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Clamart	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr A Albore	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By application dated 16 July 2024, Ryan Eyles [‘the applicant’] applies for a grant of bail from this court. He is on remand for the alleged commission of 24 offences.

Background and the alleged offending
The Edwards matters

The applicant was arrested and charged on 7 June 2024 with seven offences in which the Informant is Leading Senior Constable Scott Edwards [‘the Edwards matters’]. The alleged offences are:

(a) Theft of a motor vehicle;

(b) Handling/receiving/retaining stolen goods (two charges);

(c) Possessing a drug of dependence;

(d) Possessing cannabis;

(e) Possessing a controlled weapon without excuse; and

(f) Driving while disqualified.

Shortly after 10:00pm on 5 June 2024, the applicant is alleged to have stolen a 2007 blue Toyota Camry motor vehicle which was parked in a McDonald’s car park in Diamond Creek while the owner of the vehicle was inside the store. The vehicle had been left running with the keys in the ignition. On 7 June 2024, police located the vehicle in Seaford with the applicant slumped in the driver’s seat. Following the applicant being roused, the police searched the vehicle, locating a small bottle containing 1‑4 Butanediol (GHB), a wallet and multiple IDs belonging to a different person, a small amount of cannabis, along with a device used to consume cannabis, in the boot of the car. Further, police inquiries revealed that the applicant’s driver’s licence was cancelled and he had been disqualified from driving at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 27 October 2023.

The applicant was subsequently arrested, interviewed and bailed to 28 June 2024. He made a no comment interview.

The Rampal matters

Approximately three weeks after the applicant’s arrest on the Edwards matters, on 28 June 2024, the applicant was arrested and charged with 11 offences in which the Informant is Senior Constable Belinda Rampal [‘the Rampal matters’]. These charges are:

(a) Being a prohibited person possessing a firearm;

(b) Shortening barrel of a long arm firearm;

(c)…

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 Eyles

Details

AGLC: Re Eyles [2024] VSC 477
Case: [2024] VSC 477
Decision Date: 9 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in the matter were the applicant, Eyles, and the respondent, the state. The applicant was seeking bail in relation to charges of stealing a motor vehicle and possessing a firearm. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The applicant had a considerable history of criminal activity, which included several instances of violence, breaches of bail, and weapons offences. He was also Aboriginal. The legal issues that needed to be addressed by the court were whether the applicant should be granted bail and, if not, the reasons why bail should be refused.

The court considered the factors set out in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). It acknowledged the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's criminal history, which included a number of serious offences. The court also took into account the applicant's Aboriginality as a factor that might indicate a likelihood of failing to appear if released on bail. The court noted that the prosecution case appeared to be strong and that there was a significant risk of reoffending if the applicant were granted bail. The court also considered the availability of the Community Intervention and Supervision Program (CISP) but determined that it was not an appropriate option in this case. Ultimately, the court concluded that the risk to the community if the applicant were released on bail was unacceptable. It therefore refused bail.

The court made a specific finding that the applicant's criminal history and the seriousness of the charges were significant factors in its decision. It also found that the risk of reoffending and the risk to the community if the applicant were released on bail were too high. The court noted that the applicant's Aboriginality was a factor that indicated a likelihood of failing to appear if released on bail. The court concluded that these factors outweighed any considerations in favour of granting bail. The orders of the court were that the applicant's application for bail was refused.

Orders