Re Hill - [2014] VSC 288

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

CR No. 0066 of 2014

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by JARROD WARD HILL

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 June 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 June 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Hill; Application for Bail
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 288

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail — Show cause application — Indictable offences alleged — Bail Act 1977 s 4(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Pearson	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Prosecution	Mr G Hughan	Craig Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Background

The applicant is presently in custody. On 22 May 2013, he was charged with the following offences: intentionally cause serious injury; recklessly cause serious injury; unlawful assault; making threat to kill and theft.

In summary, the Crown alleges that on 15 March 2013, the complainant visited his friend, Adam Lewis, in Croydon. The complainant had met the applicant a number of times before. The complainant and the applicant had a disagreement that became heated. The complainant decided to leave to avoid further argument. He then walked up the driveway and as he reached the nature strip, it is alleged that the applicant hit the complainant’s left leg and then his right leg about three times with a machete or meat cleaver type weapon and threatened to kill him if he rang the police.

Subsequently the complainant underwent surgery on both legs to repair his fractured left ankle and nerve damage to his right calf. His leg was then placed in a plaster, he was restricted to a wheel chair and required extensive rehabilitation to enable him to walk again. He subsequently made a physical recovery from the injuries.

The applicant has been committed to stand trial on these charges in the County Court. His trial is listed for trial for hearing on 16 March 2015 for seven days. The matter is listed for a final directions hearing on 29 January 2015.

The applicant’s previous bail applications

The applicant initially applied for bail at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 16 July 2013. That application was refused.

A subsequent application, made on 8 November 2013, was also refused. The grounds for refusal were that the applicant had failed to show cause and was an unacceptable risk of failing to appear.

On 16 January 2014, the applicant made a third application for bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court and that application was again refused. The grounds of refusal were that the applicant had failed to show cause and was an unacceptable risk of committing further offences while on bail, endangering the safety and welfare of the members of the public, interfering with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.

The applicant’s current application for bail

The applicant now applies for bail.

In support of his application, he relies on an affidavit…

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 Hill

Details

AGLC: Re Hill; [2014] VSC 288
Case: [2014] VSC 288
Decision Date: 19 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re Hill involved an application for a show cause order in relation to bail, where the respondent was facing multiple indictable charges. The application was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The respondent, Hill, sought to challenge the decision to refuse bail, arguing that the criteria under section 4(4) of the Bail Act 1977 were not appropriately applied by the magistrate.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate correctly exercised their discretion under section 4(4) of the Bail Act 1977 when deciding to refuse bail. The court needed to assess if the evidence provided in support of the refusal was sufficient and whether the decision was legally sound. The respondent argued that the decision was flawed, particularly in terms of the weight given to certain evidence and the interpretation of the statutory criteria.

The court found that the magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion, applying the relevant statutory criteria correctly. The evidence presented supported the conclusion that the respondent was a flight risk and that there were substantial reasons to believe that the respondent would not appear for trial if granted bail. The court held that the magistrate's decision was legally sound, and there was no basis to grant the show cause application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, affirming the magistrate's decision to refuse bail.

Orders