Re Jal - [2024] VSC 539

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0145

Between:
CHADUER JAL	Applicant
-and-
DETECTIVE SENIOR CONSTABLE KATHERINE LAVARS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING & ORDERS:	26 June 2024
DATE OF WRITTEN REASONS:	4 September 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Jal
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 539

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Applicant, aged 27, charged with armed robbery, possess unregistered handgun, and intentionally causing serious injury — Police allege applicant with his brother and another passenger exit a car in Dandenong, and passenger discharges sawn‑off shotgun into air — Applicant then approaches complainant and swings him by shoulder bag, causing him to drop bag and applicant’s shoe to fall off — Complainant flees and applicant’s brother chases him — While applicant puts on shoe and picks up comb he dropped, brother catches complainant and hits him twice to the head with handgun, knocking him unconscious — Brother then takes bag — Incident in part recorded on CCTV — Applicant arrested two months later — Hours before incident, applicant robbed of phone, which he reported to police later on day of alleged offences — Whether compelling reason justifying bail — Whether, if bailed, unacceptable risk of endangering safety or welfare of any person — Applicant living with mother and seven siblings — Employed full‑time — Completed university degree — Mother dependent on financial and other assistance from applicant — No criminal history; only prior engagement in ROPES program as a child on charges including recklessly causing serious injury, nearly ten years ago — Significant weaknesses in Crown case including on identity, claim of right, contemporaneity, and complicity — Compelling reason established — Asserted risk not unacceptable — Bail granted on own undertaking with conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Hooper	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms M Arceri	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

On 26 June 2024, I heard an application for bail by Chaduer Jal (“the applicant”), who is aged 27. He was charged with armed robbery,[1] possessing an unregistered handgun,[2] intentionally causing serious injury,[3] and, in the alternative to the latter charge, recklessly causing serious injury.[4]
[1]Contrary to the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 75A(1).
[2]Contrary to the Firearms Act 1886 (Vic), s 7B(1).
[3]Contrary to the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 16.
[4]Contrary to the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 17.

After hearing evidence and submissions, I gave brief ex tempore reasons to the effect that I was satisfied that compelling reasons exist that justify a grant of bail, and that I was not satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that, if bailed, the applicant would endanger the safety or welfare of any person. Accordingly, I ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his own undertaking on a number of conditions.

I promised to publish detailed written reasons for my decision and orders at a later…

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 Jal

Details

AGLC: Re Jal [2024] VSC 539
Case: [2024] VSC 539
Decision Date: 4 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, aged 27, was before the Court to apply for bail in relation to serious charges, including armed robbery, possession of an unregistered handgun, and intentionally causing serious injury. The matter was heard in the relevant court. The central issue for determination was whether there was a compelling reason justifying the applicant's release on bail and whether, if granted bail, there was an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person.

The court considered the compelling reasons justifying bail, including the applicant's strong ties to the community, his employment, and his financial support of his mother and seven siblings. The court also noted the applicant's clean criminal record and his participation in the ROPES program as a child, which was nearly ten years prior. The court found that these factors, along with the significant weaknesses in the Crown's case, established a compelling reason for granting bail. The applicant's lack of criminal history and the absence of any recent engagement in criminal activity further supported the finding of a compelling reason.

In addition, the court examined the risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person if the applicant was granted bail. The court was satisfied that, given the applicant's circumstances and the conditions that would be imposed, the risk was not unacceptable. The court found that the applicant would comply with strict conditions, including residing at a specified address and abiding by a curfew, which mitigated the risk. Consequently, the court granted bail on the applicant's own undertaking with specified conditions.

The final orders included that the applicant was to be released on bail on his own undertaking with conditions, including residing at a specified address, abiding by a curfew, and complying with regular reporting requirements. The applicant was also to surrender any travel documents and refrain from contacting any witnesses or going to certain locations. The court's decision was based on the compelling reasons for bail and the manageable risk, taking into account the applicant's personal circumstances and the conditions that would be imposed.

Orders