Re Glover - [2021] VSC 822

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0340

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by NATHAN GLOVER

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 December 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 December 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Glover
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 822

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Schedule 2 offence, allegation of committing indictable offence while on bail for another indictable offence (4 charges) – Applicant required to show compelling reason justifying grant of bail – Whether compelling reason established – Whether unacceptable risk – Application refused – Bail Act 1977, ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K Farrell	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr C Grant	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is currently facing the following charges:

·intentionally damaging property, contrary to s 197(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (charge 1);
·arson, contrary to ss 197(1) and (6) of the Crimes Act (charge 2);
·possessing a prohibited weapon, contrary to s 5AAA of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (charge 3);
·possessing a drug of dependence (two charges, cannabis and psilocybin), contrary to s 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (charges 4 and 5); and
·committing an indictable offence while on bail (four charges), contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (charges 6 to 9).

The offences giving rise to charges 1 and 2 are alleged to have occurred on 7 October 2021. On 14 October 2021, investigators attended the applicant’s premises and executed a search warrant. The offences giving rise to charges 3 to 5 are alleged to have occurred on that day (14 October). Following the execution of the warrant, the applicant was charged and remanded in custody.

At the time of his alleged offending in October 2021, the applicant was on bail for another indictable offence.

On 29 October 2021 the applicant made an application for bail at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. Committing an indictable offence while on bail for another indictable offence is a Schedule 2 offence within the meaning of s 3 of the Bail Act. As a result, the applicant was required to establish that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail before bail could be granted.[1] On 5 November 2021, a magistrate refused the applicant’s application for bail.
[1]See s 4C(1A) of the Bail Act.

On 29 November 2021, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court. It remains the position that the applicant is required to establish that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail before bail can be granted. Additionally, bail must be refused if the prosecution satisfies the Court there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would, if released on bail, endanger the safety or welfare…

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 Glover

Details

AGLC: Re Glover [2021] VSC 822
Case: [2021] VSC 822
Decision Date: 10 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Glover, the applicant was before the Court with an application for bail, following an arrest and charge with four indictable offences. The court had to determine whether the applicant had established a compelling reason that would justify the grant of bail, given the allegations that he had committed another indictable offence while on bail for separate indictable charges. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court was required to consider included whether the applicant had shown a compelling reason that would justify the grant of bail under section 1B of the Bail Act 1977. The court also needed to assess whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if granted bail, and whether the circumstances warranted the making of a non-standard bail condition under section 4C of the Bail Act. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was sufficient evidence to justify a refusal of bail under section 4AA of the Bail Act.

The court found that the applicant had not established a compelling reason for the grant of bail. The applicant's previous history of offending and the nature of the current charges indicated a risk to the community if he were to be released on bail. The court concluded that the risk of reoffending was significant, and the seriousness of the current charges further supported the refusal of bail. Consequently, the court held that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977. The application for bail was refused.

The court made orders under section 4E of the Bail Act 1977, confirming the applicant's continued detention in custody until the substantive matter is heard. The court emphasised the seriousness of the allegations and the risk posed by the applicant to the community, justifying the refusal of bail.

Orders