Re Froud - [2020] VSC 794

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2020 0296

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and –

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by NATHAN FROUD

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 November 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 November 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Froud
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 794

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – 29 year old with significant criminal history – Charges of aggravated burglary, intentionally causing injury, assault and criminal damage – Two complainants being the applicant’s ex-partner and her new partner – Family violence – Seriousness of offending – Strength of prosecution case – Delay – Compelling reason not made out – Unacceptable risk in any case – Bail refused – Bail Act 1997, ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E and 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr C Wareham	Daniel Taylor Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

The applicant applies for bail in respect of charges of aggravated burglary (two counts), intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, unlawful assault (two counts) and criminal damage. The offences were allegedly committed in the early hours of 14 October 2020.

The applicant was arrested on 14 October 2020, then charged and remanded on 15 October 2020. He has remained in custody since, having brought an unsuccessful application for bail in the Bairnsdale Magistrates’ Court on 16 October 2020. The learned magistrate refused bail on the basis that a compelling reason had not been shown to justify the grant of bail.

The charges are next listed for a committal mention on 6 January 2021. On that date it is expected that they will be listed to a nominal committal date of 17 February 2021. It is not expected that the committal will proceed on the latter date but be listed for committal on a later, unknown date in 2021. If committed to the County Court, the parties expect the applicant to stand trial during 2022.

It is agreed between the parties that bail must be refused in this case unless the applicant satisfies the Court that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail. This is because the applicant is charged with Schedule 2 offences of the Bail Act 1977 (Act).[1]
[1]Items 22 (b) and 23 of Schedule 2, namely aggravated burglary and an indictable offence in the course of committing the applicant is alleged to have used an offensive weapon.

Background

In October 2020 the applicant lived in a unit on his mother’s property in Swifts Creek with his two year old son, M. His mother lived in the separate, but proximate, main dwelling. The applicant had the care of his son pursuant to an Interim Accommodation Order (IAO) made by the Children’s Court of Victoria.

The mother of M, Jessica Morgan, is one of the two complainants in this case. The relationship…

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 Froud

Details

AGLC: Re Froud [2020] VSC 794
Case: [2020] VSC 794
Decision Date: 27 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Froud, sought bail in relation to a number of serious criminal charges. These charges included aggravated burglary, intentionally causing injury, assault, and criminal damage. The charges arose from an incident where the applicant's ex-partner and her new partner were assaulted and their home damaged. The respondents opposed the bail application, citing the significant criminal history of the applicant, the seriousness of the offending, the strength of the prosecution case, the risk of offending while on bail, and the lack of a compelling reason to grant bail. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the applicant was eligible for bail under the Bail Act 1997, and if so, whether the circumstances justified the grant of bail. The court was required to consider the seriousness of the offending, the strength of the prosecution case, the risk of offending while on bail, and any compelling reasons for the grant of bail. The court also had to consider the principles of family violence and the risk of offending while on bail.

The court found that the applicant was ineligible for bail under the Bail Act 1997. The seriousness of the offending was high, and the applicant had a significant criminal history. The strength of the prosecution case was strong, and the risk of offending while on bail was high. The court found that there was no compelling reason to grant bail, and that the risk of offending while on bail was unacceptable. The court noted that the incident involved family violence, and that the risk of offending while on bail was high. The court concluded that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community and that there was no compelling reason to grant bail.

The court refused bail to the applicant. The court found that the applicant was ineligible for bail under the Bail Act 1997, and that the circumstances did not justify the grant of bail. The court found that the seriousness of the offending, the strength of the prosecution case, and the risk of offending while on bail outweighed any compelling reasons for the grant of bail. The court noted that the incident involved family violence, and that the risk of offending while on bail was high. The court concluded that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community and that there was no compelling reason to grant bail.

Orders