Re Gruevski - [2013] VSC 349

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 108 of 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by DRAGAN GRUEVSKI

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 July 2013
DATE OF RULING:	4 July 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Gruevski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 349

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Breach of Personal Safety Intervention Order – Harassment – Application for bail – Show cause – Condition that applicant not reside at own premises – Condition that applicant notify informant prior to attending own premises –Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Lucian Richter	Robert Stary Lawyers
For the Accused	Ms Michelle Zammit	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant has lived at his Yarraville address for 30 years. He is aged 48, in poor health and an alcoholic. For the last 13 years he has had a poor relationship with his neighbours. It has not so far descended into violence, but there is a substantial, and unfortunately increasingly acrimonious, history of relations between the parties.

A Personal Safety Intervention Order was taken out against the applicant in 2009. It lapsed in May 2010. In March 2012 a second Personal Safety Intervention Order was granted to the complainants. It will survive until March 2017. Relevantly, the order prohibits the applicant engaging in harassment of the affected persons.

On 2 and 21 April 2013 and 7 May 2013 the applicant is alleged to have breached that order by playing loud music at odd hours. He was charged with three alleged breaches of the PSO and bailed to appear at the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court. A condition of his bail was that the applicant not play loudly amplified music in his house.

On 21 June 2013 at 1.50am, it is alleged that the applicant again turned up his stereo to an unreasonable level. The police were called, and when the applicant was arrested he allegedly stated that if he were locked up he “would kill” his neighbours. Other similar threats were made at the same time.

He was charged with a further count of breaching a PSO and bail was refused at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. He has not been charged with any offences relating to the threats that he allegedly made.

He has now been in custody since 21 June 2013. It is not in dispute that the onus is on the applicant to show cause why his detection in custody is not justified. Should the applicant demonstrate this he will successfully have resisted the prosecution submission that he is an unacceptable risk of further offending whilst on bail (see Re Asmar [2005] VSC 487).

There is little doubt that the applicant has persistently disturbed the peace of his neighbours by constantly playing loud music over a considerable period. Between 14 October 2012 and 31 March 2013 police have attended at his residence on…

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 Gruevski

Details

AGLC: Re Gruevski [2013] VSC 349
Case: [2013] VSC 349
Decision Date: 4 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Gruevski for bail in the context of a breach of a Personal Safety Intervention Order (PPIO) for harassment. Gruevski was facing charges relating to the alleged breach of a PPIO obtained by a woman who had been a victim of domestic violence. The application was heard by the Court of Appeal in Australia. The respondent opposed the application on the grounds that the applicant was a flight risk and that there was a risk of reoffending.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the conditions proposed for bail were appropriate and necessary to address the risk of reoffending and flight. The court was required to balance the rights of the applicant to liberty against the need to protect the respondent and the community. The court also had to consider whether the proposed bail conditions were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

In considering these issues, the court noted that Gruevski had been living in his own premises and had a good employment record. The court acknowledged that the applicant had a history of violence towards the respondent, but found that there was no evidence that he had been violent towards anyone else. The court concluded that the proposed bail conditions, including that Gruevski not reside at his own premises and that he notify the informant before attending his own premises, were appropriate and necessary to address the risk of reoffending and flight. The court also noted that the respondent had not opposed these specific conditions. The court granted the application for bail, subject to the proposed conditions. The court further ordered that Gruevski provide a bond of $10,000 and surrender his passport.

Orders