Re JP - [2024] VSC 691

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0252

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by JP

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 November 2024
DATE OF RULING:	8 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re JP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 691

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Allegations of family violence – Persistent contravention of family violence intervention order – Alleged threats to kill – Alleged strangulation – Schedule 2 offences alleged to have been committed while on bail for other Schedule 2 offences – Requirement to show exceptional circumstances – Strength of prosecution case – Availability of psychological treatment – Availability of stable accommodation – Availability of secure employment – Availability of bail guarantee – Whether time spent on remand likely to exceed any term of imprisonment – Exceptional circumstances not established – Unacceptable risk would have been established – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA, 5AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	H Rattray	Melasecca Zayler
For the respondent	A Singh (solicitor)	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

On 29 October 2024, a notice of intention to make an application for bail was filed on behalf of JP.[1]
[1]A pseudonym has been used to ensure compliance with s 166 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic).
On 30 August 2024, JP was arrested, charged and remanded in custody in respect of a number of offences allegedly perpetrated against his former partner. These include charges of stalking, threats to kill and a number of breaches of a family violence intervention order. JP has been on remand since the date of his arrest, having been refused bail in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria on 31 August 2024.
At the time of his arrest, JP was on bail in relation to other alleged offending of a similar nature.
In early September 2024, JP made a further application for bail in the Magistrates’ Court. That application was refused on the basis that JP was unable to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of bail.
The matter is listed for contest mention in the Magistrates’ Court on 26 November 2024.
In this court, JP relied upon, among other things, the existence of triable issues, the availability of psychological counselling services, stable accommodation, secure employment, and the offer of a $100,000 bail guarantee from his mother to establish the existence of exceptional circumstances. The application was opposed by the prosecution on the basis that exceptional circumstances had not been established, and in any event, JP would present an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any other person, interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice, and failing to surrender into custody, if he were to be released on bail.
For the reasons to follow, the application…

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 JP

Details

AGLC: Re JP [2024] VSC 691
Case: [2024] VSC 691
Decision Date: 8 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re JP involved the appellant, JP, who was seeking bail while facing serious charges of family violence. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the presiding judge was tasked with determining whether JP met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). JP had previously been on bail for other serious offences when the new allegations arose, including threats to kill, strangulation, and persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order. The court had to assess whether JP's circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant bail, considering the gravity of the new charges and the potential risk to the community.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether JP's persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order and the nature of the new allegations created an unacceptable risk to the community, thereby precluding bail. The court also considered the strength of the prosecution's case, the availability of psychological treatment, stable accommodation, secure employment, and a bail guarantee. Additionally, the court evaluated whether the time JP had already spent on remand was likely to exceed any potential term of imprisonment if convicted. The judge had to balance these factors against the principles of the Bail Act to determine if exceptional circumstances existed to warrant bail.

In its reasoning, the court found that JP's history of non-compliance with court orders and the seriousness of the new allegations posed a significant risk to the community. Despite JP's availability of psychological treatment, stable accommodation, and a bail guarantee, the court was not convinced that these factors outweighed the unacceptable risk presented by JP's past behaviour and the gravity of the new charges. The judge concluded that exceptional circumstances had not been established and denied bail, highlighting the need for the community to be protected from further harm. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework provided by the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) and the particular circumstances of JP's case.

The final orders of the court were that JP's application for bail was refused, and he was to remain in custody pending the resolution of the charges against him. The judge emphasised the importance of considering the safety of the community and the potential for JP to reoffend, given his history and the nature of the new allegations.

Orders