Re Jock - [2021] VSC 561

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0217

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by KOANG JOCK

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 September 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 September 2021
DATE OF REVISED REASONS:	8 September 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Jock
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 561

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence and alternative charges, affray — Delay — Impact of the COVID-19 — Strength of the prosecution case — Parity — Supports in the community — Compelling reason established — Unacceptable risk not demonstrated — Bail granted with conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E — Cases cited: Rodgers v The Queen [2019] VSCA 214; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Abbott 97 A Crim R 19; Bchinnati v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (No 2) [2017] VSC 620.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms Angela Sharpley	Slades & Parsons Criminal Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms Francesca Holmes	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Koang Jock (‘the applicant’), who is 23 years old. He is one of four co-accused charged following a violent altercation with three men in Cranbourne West in the early hours of 1 January 2021. The applicant seeks bail in relation to the following charges brought by Detective Leading Senior Constable Adam Meagher (‘the informant Meagher matter’):

(a) intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence (three charges);[1]
[1]Contrary to s 15A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

(b) recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence (three charges);[2]
[2]Contrary to s 15B of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

(c) intentionally causing serious injury (three charges);[3]
[3]Contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

(d) recklessly causing serious injury (three charges);[4]

(e) affray;[5] and

(f) common assault.[6]

[4]Contrary to s 17 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[5]Contrary to s 195H of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[6]Contrary to common law.

The applicant has been remanded in custody since 1 January 2021, a period of 243 days as at the day of this application. He was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 5 May 2021 on the basis that he failed to show a compelling reason that justified the grant of bail and that he posed an unacceptable risk within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’). I note that the applicant being found to have failed to establish a compelling reason was sufficient to dispose of the application, without a finding in relation to risk.

By application filed on 18 August 2021, the applicant seeks a grant of bail in this Court. The application is opposed.

The informant Meagher matter is next listed for committal hearing,…

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 Jock

Details

AGLC: Re Jock [2021] VSC 561
Case: [2021] VSC 561
Decision Date: 1 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Jock, applied for bail from the Supreme Court of Victoria under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). Jock was facing charges of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence and alternative charges, as well as affray. The primary issue was whether the respondent met the criteria for bail under the Act, considering the delay in the matter, the impact of COVID-19, the strength of the prosecution case, and other relevant factors.

The court considered the delay in the matter and its impact on the respondent's right to a fair trial. The court also assessed the strength of the prosecution case, the likelihood of the respondent appearing at trial, and the possibility of the respondent reoffending if released on bail. The court further examined the respondent's support in the community, the risk of flight, and the impact of the respondent's release on the community. The court determined that the compelling reason for bail was established, and the unacceptable risk was not demonstrated.

The court concluded that Jock was eligible for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The court set bail conditions, including a requirement for Jock to reside at a specified address, not to contact certain individuals, and to surrender his passport. The court also ordered that Jock be electronically monitored and subject to a curfew.

The final orders of the court were that Jock be released on bail, subject to the conditions set out in the judgment. The court also ordered that Jock be electronically monitored and subject to a curfew. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and that the bail conditions were necessary to ensure that Jock complied with the terms of his release.

Orders