Re Hyman - [2021] VSC 491

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0197

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by LANCE HYMAN

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 August 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 August 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Hyman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 491

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of recklessly cause injury, threat to kill, assault, contravening a family violence intervention order and committing an indictable offence while on bail — Allegations of family violence — Strength of prosecution case — Availability of Court Integrated Services Program support — Exceptional circumstances not established — Bail refused — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA — Cases cited: Jason Joseph Roberts v The Queen [2021] VSCA 28; R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88; R v Madex [2020] VSC 145, Re McCann [2020] VSC 138, Re Broes [2020] VSC 128.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms Nicole Menegas	Patrick W. Dwyer Barristers and Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr Amitoj Singh	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Lance Hyman (the ‘applicant’). He has been remanded in custody since 19 December 2020, a period of almost eight months, after being arrested by First Constable Lachlan McGrath and charged with the following offences (the ‘second McGrath matter’):

(a) recklessly causing injury (three charges);[1]
[1]Contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

(b) making threats to kill;[2]
[2]Contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

(c) assault with a weapon;[3]
[3]Contrary to s 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

(d) aggravated assault of a female;[4]
[4]Contrary to s 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

(e) unlawful assault;[5]
[5]Contrary to s 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

(f) committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (two charges);[6]

(g) contravening a family violence intervention order (‘FVIO’);[7] and

(h) contravening a FVIO intending to cause harm or fear (two charges).[8]

[6]Contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

[7]Contrary to s 123 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic).

[8]Contrary to s 123A of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic).

Procedural history

At the time of the alleged offending in the second McGrath matter, the applicant was on summons for a single charge of possessing a dangerous article (the ‘Gibson matter’) on also on bail for one charge of unlawful assault and three charges of contravening a FVIO (the ‘first McGrath matter’). The charges in the first McGrath matter related to allegations made by the applicant’s former partner, KV, who is also a complainant in the second McGrath matter.

On 21 December 2020, the applicant applied for bail in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court in the second McGrath matter. The application was adjourned part-heard and refused by the…

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 Hyman

Details

AGLC: Re Hyman [2021] VSC 491
Case: [2021] VSC 491
Decision Date: 13 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Hyman, has applied for bail in the County Court of Victoria, facing multiple serious charges, including recklessly causing injury, threatening to kill, assault, and contravening a family violence intervention order. The prosecution case is based on allegations of family violence and Hyman's alleged failure to comply with a family violence intervention order. Hyman was also charged with committing an indictable offence while on bail, which is an additional consideration for the court.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). This involved weighing the seriousness of the charges against the applicant's personal circumstances, the risk of reoffending, and the interests of the community. The court also considered the applicant's history of non-compliance with court orders and the availability of support services, such as the Court Integrated Services Program.

In refusing bail, the court found that the prosecution had established a strong case against the applicant, with credible evidence of family violence and non-compliance with court orders. The court also noted that the applicant had previously been granted bail and had reoffended, indicating a risk of reoffending if released. The court further found that the exceptional circumstances required to grant bail were not established, as the applicant had not demonstrated any significant change in circumstances since the previous bail application. The court was also concerned about the risk to the community, particularly the alleged victim of the family violence.

The court's final orders were that the application for bail be refused. The applicant was remanded in custody and advised to make a further application for bail in six months' time if there had been a significant change in circumstances. The court also noted that the applicant could apply for review of the bail decision at any time.

Orders