Re JB

Case [2020] VSC 184 16 April 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0068

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail by JB

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 April 2020
DATE OF RULING:	16 April 2020
DATE OF REASON:	17 April 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re JB
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 184

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Multiple charges including theft, handling stolen goods, reckless conduct endangering serious injury – Committing indictable offence on bail – Whether compelling reason established – Relevance of COVID-19 pandemic – Whether unacceptable risk of re-offending and endangering public safety – Bail Act 1977, ss 1B, 3B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C,4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr L Richter	Patrick Allen Law
For the Respondent	Mr P Collins	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, JB, applies for bail in respect of a number of charges including theft, handling stolen property, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, possession of cannabis, unlicensed driving and committing an indicatable offence while on bail.

The applicant was born on 11 April 2003. At the time of his arrest, on 16 March, he was 16 years of age, and he is now 17 years of age. After his arrest, he was remanded in custody. On 7 April 2020, an application for bail was refused at the Dandenong Children’s Court on the ground that there is an unacceptable risk that he would commit an offence while on bail, endanger the safety or welfare of another, and fail to surrender himself in accordance with the conditions of bail.

There are three separate informants in respect of the charges on which the applicant was remanded, namely Leading Senior Constable Halion, Senior Constable Clarke and Senior Constable Swainson. At the time of his arrest, he was on bail in respect of charges that had been laid on 20 October 2019 by Constable Berryman.

The current charges concern a series of offences in which it is alleged that the applicant was implicated between 6 March and the date of his arrest on 16 March.

For the purpose of this application, it is only necessary to summarise the circumstances of the offending in short compass.

In the early hours of 5 March 2020, five unidentified youths broke and entered into a house in which a young couple was living with their newborn baby. There they stole a number of sets of vehicle keys, and used one of them to access and steal a Mercedes Benz vehicle that was parked in the driveway. On 9 March, the applicant drove the Mercedes Benz to Coles Express in Berwick. There he filled the vehicle with $79.45 worth of petrol, and drove off without paying. The incident was captured on CCTV footage. Three days later, on 12 March, the applicant was observed on CCTV footage driving the Mercedes Benz vehicle during a similar petrol theft that he…

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 JB

Details

AGLC: Re JB [2020] VSC 184
Case: [2020] VSC 184
Decision Date: 16 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Re JB is a case in which the respondent sought bail following their arrest for multiple charges, including theft, handling stolen goods, and reckless conduct endangering serious injury. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had established a compelling reason to be granted bail, given their previous charges and the risk of re-offending, particularly in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The court had to determine if there was an unacceptable risk of the respondent re-offending and endangering public safety if released on bail.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Bail Act 1977, focusing on sections 1B, 3B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, and 4E. The respondent argued that the COVID-19 pandemic presented a compelling reason for bail, as the conditions of imprisonment could exacerbate the health risks posed by the virus. However, the court considered the severity of the charges and the potential for re-offending. Ultimately, the court found that the respondent had not demonstrated a compelling reason for bail, as the risk of re-offending and endangering public safety outweighed any potential benefit from being released during the pandemic.

Consequently, the respondent's application for bail was refused. The court concluded that the unacceptable risk of re-offending and the potential danger to public safety, combined with the respondent's history of similar offences, did not justify granting bail under the circumstances. The decision reflects the court's consideration of the balance between individual rights and community protection, particularly in a time of public health crisis.

Orders