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

v

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:

1. 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. 

1. 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. 

1. 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. 

1. 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. 

1. 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. 

1. 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).

1. 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 69 occasions to resolve issues between the applicant and his neighbours. 

1. The Maribyrnong City Council has a file on the applicant and has issued penalty notices in relation to noise offences.  Police have issued four penalty notices relating to undue noise in 2013 alone. 

1. The charges relating to the original three breaches of the PSO and the subsequent breach of the PSO I am told have been consolidated into the one hearing, and a mention of this hearing will take place on 31 July 2013 at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court. I am told these matters will be defended, and I was directed to the definition of “harassment” contained within s 7 of the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010. 

1. Without resolving this issue, I consider there may be a defence available to the applicant and that the proposal to defend the charges is far from capricious. 

1. What this means is that the charges that the applicant faces will not be heard for some months.  It is inconceivable that, if convicted, the applicant would receive anything like the term of imprisonment that he will have served by the time the charges are resolved. 

1. I consider the applicant has shown cause within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977, however, I am troubled by the threats allegedly uttered by the applicant upon his arrest.

1. I propose to make it a condition of his bail that he reside with Michael Addison at 198/90 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy.  I am conscious that this will have the effect of evicting the applicant from his house of 30 years for a period of months, however, I consider that this condition is necessary, at least in the short term, to mitigate the risk that I have identified.  It may well be that should the applicant demonstrate to a magistrate that he is addressing his alcoholism and lifestyle issues that this condition may not be necessary for the entire life of this order. 

1. I propose to order that the applicant be released on his own undertaking to attend the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court on 31 July 2013, and I propose conditions to the following effect: 

1.        That he reside at 198/90 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy. 

2.        That he not approach within 500 metres of 55 Bishop Street, Yarraville, save and except to retrieve personal belongings, or to attend to maintenance on those premises, and only after notifying the informant of his intention to do so. 

3.     That he have no deliberate contact, either directly or indirectly, with any member of the Drossos family.  There may be an occasion, if he does go to his home, where he inadvertently comes across a member of that family and, of course, it would be his obligation to just keep walking into his house.