Re Jakobsson (Bail Application) - [2015] VSC 585

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

REDACTED

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0148

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by CALEB JAKOBSSON

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 October 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 October 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Jakobsson (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 585

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Culpable driving causing death and associated offences –Whether unacceptable risk – Youth – Bail granted on strict conditions – Bail Act 1977 s 4(2)(d)(i).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M J Rochford QC	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J D Kantor	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Caleb Jakobsson, the applicant, is aged 18 years. On 23 September 2015, he was involved in an incident which led to him being charged with a number of serious offences. Principally on the basis that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk that he would commit further offences whilst on bail, he was refused bail in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne on 30 September 2015. He now seeks bail from this Court.

The applicant has been charged with one charge each of culpable driving causing death;[1] dangerous driving causing death;[2] reckless conduct endangering life;[3] reckless conduct endangering serious injury;[4] failing to stop after an accident whereby a person was killed;[5] failing to render assistance after an accident whereby a person was killed;[6] driving in a manner dangerous;[7] driving at a speed dangerous;[8] unlicensed driving;[9] [*redacted]; and using an unregistered vehicle.[10]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 318.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 319.
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 22.
[4]Crimes Act 1958, s 23.
[5]Road Safety Act 1986, s 61(3).
[6]Road Safety Act 1986, s 61(3).
[7]Road Safety Act 1986, s 64(1).
[8]Road Safety Act 1986, s 64(1).
[9]Road Safety Act 1986, s 18(1)(a).
[10]Road Safety Act 1986, s 7(1)(a).

It is alleged that, on 23 September 2015, at about 5.11pm, the applicant, who is unlicensed, was riding an unregistered motorcycle in the Carrum Downs Regional Shopping Centre car park, located in Hall Road, Carrum Downs. He was one of four riders, and was carrying a pillion passenger. At the same time, Ms Andrea Lehane was walking across a marked pedestrian crossing. The applicant overtook a car that had stopped at the crossing on its passenger side and collided with Ms Lehane. She was thrown several metres, and struck her head on the bitumen causing critical head injuries from which she later died. The applicant and his pillion passenger fell to the ground with the motorcycle. He immediately remounted the motorcycle, however, and fled the scene, without attempting to offer any assistance to the critically injured Ms Lehane. A reconstruction of the accident by members of the Major Collision Investigation Unit (‘MCIU’) suggests…

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 Jakobsson (Bail Application)

Details

AGLC: Re Jakobsson (Bail Application) [2015] VSC 585
Case: [2015] VSC 585
Decision Date: 20 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Jakobsson, the applicant was before the court on a bail application in relation to charges of culpable driving causing death and associated offences. The case was heard in the Local Court of Australia. The applicant, a young person, faced serious charges that stemmed from a tragic incident in which they were alleged to have caused the death of another individual through reckless driving. Given the gravity of the charges and the potential impact on the community, the court was tasked with determining whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk if released on bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if granted bail. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the charges against the applicant's personal circumstances, including their age and the potential for rehabilitation. Under the Bail Act 1977, the court had to consider whether the applicant was likely to appear at their scheduled court dates, and whether bail could be granted on strict conditions that would mitigate any potential risk to the community.

The court considered various factors in reaching its decision, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant's criminal history, their ties to the community, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court acknowledged the severity of the charges but also recognised the applicant's age and the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that while the charges were serious, the risk to the community could be managed through stringent bail conditions. These conditions included strict curfews, electronic monitoring, and a prohibition on driving. The court concluded that these measures were sufficient to mitigate the risk while allowing the applicant to prepare for their defence.

Consequently, the court granted the applicant bail, subject to the strict conditions outlined. The decision balanced the need for justice and community protection with the rights of the accused, reflecting the nuanced approach required in such sensitive matters.

Orders