Re JM - [2019] VSC 156

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0059

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by JM

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 March 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 March 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re JM
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 156

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Children’s Court – Charges of aggravated burglary, theft, criminal damage, unlawful assault, obtaining property by deception, attempting to obtain property by deception, handling stolen goods, unlicensed driving, marking graffiti without consent – Applicant required to show compelling reasons – Special vulnerability – Likely sentence – Availability of support and treatment services – Bail not opposed – Compelling reason shown – Unacceptable risk not demonstrated – Bail granted subject to conditions – Bail Act 1977.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R. De Vietri	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms H. Spowart	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

On 3 March 2019, the applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated burglary, three counts of theft, criminal damage, unlawful assault, obtaining property by deception, attempting to obtain property by deception, handling stolen goods, unlicensed driving and marking graffiti without consent. The charges relate to incidents alleged to have occurred between 20 February 2019 and 2 March 2019.

The applicant is 16 years old and has been in custody since his arrest. On 5 March 2019, the Ballarat Children’s Court refused his application for bail in respect to these charges.

At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was subject to a summons to answer charges of unlawful assault (three counts), recklessly causing injury, and contravening a family violence intervention order (‘FVIO’), in respect to incidents alleged to have occurred between 26 November 2018 and 1 January 2019 (‘the Informant Aranyosi matters’). The applicant remains released on summons in respect to these matters.

Both sets of charges are next listed for mention at the Ballarat Children’s Court on 18 March 2019. On 6 March 2019, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court.

The alleged offending
20 February 2019

The prosecution alleges that on 20 February 2019, the applicant stole a wallet containing credit cards and approximately $100 from the change rooms at the Ballarat Aquatic Centre.

The wallet was found on the windowsill of the applicant’s bedroom during a search conducted by police on 2 March 2019. Police note there are surveillance cameras at the aquatic centre, but the footage has not yet been collected.

It is further alleged that on 20 February 2019, the applicant and two co-accused marked the rear side of a property with graffiti. Police identified the applicant from CCTV still images provided by the owner, but are waiting for a full copy of the footage.

One of the co-accused is yet to be interviewed and the other is yet to be identified.

25 February 2019

It is…

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 JM

Details

AGLC: Re JM [2019] VSC 156
Case: [2019] VSC 156
Decision Date: 13 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Children’s Court of New South Wales, the case of Re JM involved an application for bail by a minor charged with multiple serious offences. JM faced charges including aggravated burglary, theft, criminal damage, unlawful assault, obtaining property by deception, attempting to obtain property by deception, handling stolen goods, unlicensed driving, and marking graffiti without consent. The court was required to determine whether JM should be granted bail, considering the nature and seriousness of the charges, the compelling reasons for bail, JM's special vulnerability, the likely sentence, and the availability of support and treatment services.

The court identified the need to assess whether JM had demonstrated compelling reasons for bail, given the gravity of the offences. Special considerations included JM's vulnerability, the potential sentence, and the support available to JM if granted bail. The prosecution did not oppose the bail application. JM presented arguments for compelling reasons and the absence of an unacceptable risk to the community if released on bail. The court found that JM had shown compelling reasons for bail and that the risk to the community was not unacceptable.

JM's bail was granted subject to a range of conditions aimed at ensuring JM's appearance in court and minimising any risk to the community. These conditions included regular check-ins with a bail supervisor, adherence to a curfew, and restrictions on contact with certain individuals. The court relied on the Bail Act 1977 to outline the terms under which JM could be released on bail pending the resolution of the charges.

Orders