Re Ilpola

Case [2020] VSC 578


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0105

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by JOEL ILPOLA

---

JUDGE:

Lasry J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

21 May 2020

DATE OF RULING:

21 May 2020

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Re Ilpola

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2020] VSC 578

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of Schedule 2 offences while subject to a community correction order for Schedule 2 offences — Allegations of family violence — Family violence intervention order in place — Whether exceptional circumstances established — Whether unacceptable risk — Delay caused by COVID-19 pandemic — Onerous conditions on remand — Breaches of court orders show risk unacceptable — Bail refused — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Applicant Mr M Page Emma Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent Ms C Parkes Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

  1. This is an application for bail by Joel Ilpola (the ‘applicant’).  On 12 January 2019, he was arrested and charged with attempted rape, sexual assault, persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order (‘FVIO’), making a threat to inflict serious injury (three counts), false imprisonment, intentionally causing injury, and common law assault. The allegations primarily arise from an incident involving the applicant's former wife on the previous day. 

  1. At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was subject to a 12-month community correction order (‘CCO’) imposed in the Ballarat Magistrates' Court on 11 October 2018, following conviction for recklessly causing injury, contravening an FVIO, intentionally damaging property, and failing to answer bail. The complainant in those matters is the same as in this case.

  1. The applicant has been refused bail twice in this matter by his Honour Judge Lacava in the County Court, first on 30 October 2019 and again on 15 April 2020. The applicant has been committed to stand trial on 22 June 2020 in the County Court sitting at Ballarat. However, as a result of that Court's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, circuit listings are unlikely to proceed until next year, and the current trial date is to be vacated.

  1. Attempted rape and persistent contravention of an FVIO are Schedule 2 offences within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (the ‘Act’) as is any offence against the Act itself, including the offence of failing to answer bail. [1] As a result, the applicant is accused of committing Schedule 2 offences during the period of a CCO imposed in respect of another Schedule 2 offence. The Act therefore requires that I refuse bail unless satisfied by the applicant that exceptional circumstances exist and that would justify the grant of bail.[2]

    [1]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 30 and sch 2 items 9, 19, 30 and 31 (‘Bail Act’).

    [2]Ibid ss 4AA and 4A.

The alleged offending

  1. The applicant…

Continue reading Re Ilpola

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Ilpola [2020] VSC 578
Case
[2020] VSC 578
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Ilpola, the applicant, and the State of Victoria, the respondent. Ilpola sought bail while facing charges of Schedule 2 offences. He was already subject to a community correction order for similar offences and had a family violence intervention order in place. The nature of the dispute centred around whether Ilpola had established exceptional circumstances warranting bail and whether his release would pose an unacceptable risk to the community. The matter was heard by the County Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether Ilpola had demonstrated exceptional circumstances under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) that would justify his release on bail, and whether his release would present an unacceptable risk to the community. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the charges, Ilpola's history of offending, the allegations of family violence, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the proceedings. The court also had to consider the ongoing effects of the family violence intervention order and the impact of the conditions imposed on Ilpola's life while on remand.

The court found that Ilpola had not established the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant bail. The seriousness of the charges, coupled with the allegations of family violence and his previous breaches of court orders, indicated that he posed an unacceptable risk to the community. The delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the onerous conditions on remand did not sway the court in favour of bail. The breaches of court orders were particularly telling, as they demonstrated a significant risk that Ilpola might not comply with bail conditions if granted. Therefore, the application for bail was refused.

The final orders of the court were that Ilpola's application for bail was dismissed, and he was to remain in custody pending the outcome of his trial. The court emphasised the need for Ilpola to adhere to all court orders and the family violence intervention order to ensure the safety of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.