Re JF - [2020] VSC 250

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2020 0079

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by JF

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	30 April and 1 May 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 May 2020
DATE OF REASONS	6 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re JF
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 250

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Reckless conduct endangering life, thefts of motor vehicles, robberies of soft targets – Offences allegedly committed in five episodes spanning one month – Applicant 16 years old with no criminal history – Most recent offending committed only three days after granted bail on stringent conditions including curfew – First time in custody – Youth Justice still supportive – Strong family support and stable home – Offending unlikely to attract custodial sentence – Educational opportunities restricted in youth justice centre because of COVID-19 – Combination of matters relied upon – Exceptional circumstances established – Stringent conditions could ameliorate risk so as not to be unacceptable – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Reardon	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr S Payne	Victoria Police, Legal Services Branch

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant, a child of 16 years of age, applies for bail in respect of two groups of charges laid by two separate informants. There are three earlier groups of charges in respect of which bail was previously granted or charges had not yet formally been laid at the time of his remand. The overall offending comprises allegations arising from five separate occasions which could be said to amount to a spree of offending between 15 March 2020 and 18 April 2020. Until the current matters, the applicant has never been in any trouble with the law.

The charges the subject of the current application are:

Senior Constable Macdonald:

· Theft of a motor vehicle

· Reckless conduct endangering life

· Failing to stop a vehicle on request

· Committing an indictable offence whilst on bail

· Unlicensed driving

Senior Constable Sheridan:

· Theft of a motor vehicle

· Attempted theft of a motor vehicle

· Possess cannabis

· Theft

· Committing an indictable offence whilst on bail

It is common ground between the parties that bail must be refused unless the applicant can satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. This is because the applicant is charged with Schedule 2 offences alleged to have been committed while he was on bail for Schedule 2 offences.

Procedural history

Bail was refused on 20 April 2020 in the Dandenong Children’s Court in the informant Sheridan matter. On that same day, bail in the informant Macdonald matter (which had been granted five days earlier) was revoked. The applicant remains on bail and/or summons for the remaining outstanding matters.

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 JF

Details

AGLC: Re JF [2020] VSC 250
Case: [2020] VSC 250
Decision Date: 4 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re JF involved a 16-year-old applicant, who was facing allegations of committing reckless conduct endangering life, thefts of motor vehicles, and robberies of soft targets in five separate incidents over a month. The applicant had no prior criminal history. Notably, the most recent offence occurred just three days after the applicant was granted bail under stringent conditions, including a curfew. This was the first time the applicant had been in custody. Despite the recent breach of bail, the Youth Justice system remained supportive, and the applicant had strong family support and a stable home environment. The court had to consider whether to grant bail in light of the recent breach and the nature of the offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant bail to the applicant, considering the recent breach of bail conditions and the severity of the alleged offences. The court had to weigh the risk of reoffending against the exceptional circumstances, including the applicant's age, lack of a criminal history, support systems, and the potential for educational opportunities to be restricted in a youth justice centre due to COVID-19. The court also needed to determine whether stringent bail conditions could sufficiently mitigate the risk of reoffending.

In determining the matter, the court found that the combination of the applicant’s age, lack of a criminal history, strong family support, and the potential negative impacts of custody on the applicant's education constituted exceptional circumstances. The court was satisfied that the stringent bail conditions, which had been breached, could be reimposed to sufficiently mitigate the risk of reoffending. The court concluded that the risk of reoffending was not unacceptable, particularly given that the offences were unlikely to attract a custodial sentence. Consequently, the court granted bail, subject to stringent conditions.

The court’s final order was to grant the applicant bail, subject to stringent conditions. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the unique circumstances of young offenders, including their age, support systems, and the potential impacts of custody, in determining whether bail should be granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [74]

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.