Re Granata - [2020] VSC 879

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0344

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by ANTONIO GRANATA

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 December 2020
DATE OF RULING:	18 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Granata
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 879

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Contravention of control order – Whether exceptional circumstances exist justifying bail – Meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ – Delay – Whether applicant presents unacceptable risk of reoffending or not complying with conditions of bail – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 3AAA, 4D, 4E; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 15AA; Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 119(4)(i).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr N Goodfellow	Patrick W Dwyer Barristers and Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr A Sim	Ms A Pavleka, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)

HIS HONOUR:

On 30 November 2020, Antonio Granata, the applicant, was arrested and remanded on one charge of contravening a control order contrary to s 104(27) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (‘Criminal Code’). The informant for that offence is Federal Agent Charles Edwards, who gave evidence in the application.

The applicant pleaded guilty on 12 December 2018 to a charge of engaging in conduct preparatory to the commission of an offence of entering a foreign country with the intention of engaging in hostile activities contrary to s 119(4)(i) of the Criminal Code (‘the index offence’), having been arrested on 10 May 2016. His

co-offenders were Robert Cerantonio, Shayden Thorne, Paul Dacre, Kadir Kaya and Murat Kaya.

The applicant was sentenced in the Supreme Court on 22 February 2019 by Croucher J to four years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.

The circumstances of the index offence are described at paragraphs [1]–[4] in Croucher J’s sentencing remarks:

On 10 May 2016, Robert Edward Cerantonio, Paul James Dacre, Antonino Alfio Granata, Shayden Jamil Thorne and Kadir Kaya, all of whom hail from Melbourne, were arrested by police near Laura, a hamlet in the far north of Queensland. The group had travelled there from Victoria in a Hyundai SUV towing a seven-metre Haines Hunter boat. Police had had the men under surveillance for a considerable period and suspected that they had been preparing to head overseas in the boat to a foreign country for the purpose of engaging in a hostile activity in Syria or Northern Iraq. Each man was charged individually with an offence of that nature against s 119.4(1) of the Criminal Code.
On 27 May 2016, police arrested a sixth man, Murat Kaya, in Melbourne, and charged him with the same offence. He had been involved in the group’s activities over previous months but had not gone with them to Queensland. Instead, he had remained in Victoria.
Having been committed for trial in this Court a year or so later, all…

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 Granata

Details

AGLC: Re Granata [2020] VSC 879
Case: [2020] VSC 879
Decision Date: 18 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Granata, the applicant sought bail pending appeal against his conviction and sentence for contravening a control order. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether there were exceptional circumstances that would justify the grant of bail to the applicant. The court was required to determine the scope of the term 'exceptional circumstances' within the context of the Bail Act 1977 and other relevant statutory provisions.

The court considered whether the delay in the appeal proceedings constituted an exceptional circumstance. It also assessed whether the applicant presented an unacceptable risk of reoffending or failing to comply with the conditions of bail. The court examined the principles established in previous cases such as Re Fardon and Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah. The applicant argued that the delay in the appeal proceedings was an exceptional circumstance, given that the appeal was yet to be listed for hearing. The court acknowledged the importance of addressing delays in legal proceedings but emphasised that the existence of exceptional circumstances must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court found that there were indeed exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail. The court concluded that the significant delay in the appeal proceedings, coupled with the applicant's lack of a criminal history and his compliance with the control order prior to the contravention, warranted the grant of bail. The court further noted that the applicant did not present an unacceptable risk of reoffending or non-compliance with bail conditions. As a result, the court granted the applicant bail pending the outcome of the appeal.

Orders