Re Keating - [2023] VSC 594

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0168

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by COREY KEATING

BETWEEN:

COREY KEATING	Applicant
- and -
VICTORIA POLICE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 September 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 September 2023
DATE OF REASONS:	13 October 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Keating
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 594

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Compelling reason test — Charges of theft, unlicenced driving, reckless conduct endangering serious injury and life, intentionally causing serious injury — Extensive criminal history — Limited delay — Intervention orders — Pregnant partner — Mental health issues — No compelling reason — Unacceptable risk shown — Bail refused — Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4E, 18, 18AA, 18AB.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Paul Kounnas Elarya George	RA Criminal Lawyers
For the Respondent	Almedina Buzo	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for bail by Corey Keating [‘the applicant’]. He seeks bail on the following charges laid by Detective Senior Constable Talissa Croxford on 14 June 2023, relating to events alleged to have occurred on five separate occasions between 30 March and 3 June 2023, namely:

(a) theft of a motor vehicle;

(b) unlicensed driving (three charges);

(c) reckless conduct endangering serious injury (two charges);

(d) failing to stop a motor vehicle on police request;

(e) theft;

(f) reckless conduct endangering life; and

(g) intentionally causing injury.

On 14 June 2023, the applicant was arrested, charged, and remanded into custody. On 14 July 2023, he was refused bail in the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court, on the basis there was an unacceptable risk he would commit an offence while on bail and endanger the safety or welfare of any person.

There are no other outstanding matters.

The alleged offending
Background

The complainants in this matter are SA, NL and SF. SA lives in Pakenham in a unit next door to the applicant’s mother; NL is SA’s partner; and SF had no connection to the applicant prior to the alleged offending.

The applicant is alleged to have committed the following offences, described in more detail below.

First incident
Charges 1 and 2: theft of a motor vehicle and unlicensed driving

On 30 March 2023, the applicant and an associate met with SF in relation to a black Holden Commodore that SF had advertised for sale online. The applicant asked to test drive the car with SF’s husband, but drove off before SF’s husband could enter the passenger seat. The applicant was alleged to be driving whilst unlicensed at the time. The vehicle has not been located.

Second incident
Charges 3 and 4: reckless conduct endangering serious injury and unlicensed driving

On 9 May 2023, NL was walking on SA’s street in Pakenham when he observed a silver Holden Commodore drive…

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 Keating

Details

AGLC: Re Keating [2023] VSC 594
Case: [2023] VSC 594
Decision Date: 5 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re Keating involved the respondent, who was seeking bail on charges including theft, unlicenced driving, reckless conduct endangering serious injury and life, and intentionally causing serious injury. The respondent's application was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The crux of the legal issues before the court was to determine whether there were compelling reasons to grant the respondent bail, considering the nature and seriousness of the charges, the respondent's extensive criminal history, and the risk to the community and any potential victims if bail were granted.

The court thoroughly examined the respondent's criminal history, which included multiple convictions for theft, driving offences, and violent crimes. It also considered the seriousness of the current charges, which involved significant risk to public safety and the potential for causing serious harm. The court noted the limited delay in bringing the respondent to court and the presence of intervention orders involving the respondent's pregnant partner, which added to the risk assessment. Despite the respondent's mental health issues, the court found that these did not constitute a compelling reason for bail, as the respondent had not demonstrated a stable mental health condition that would mitigate the risk to the community. The court concluded that the unacceptable risk posed by the respondent if granted bail outweighed any potential reasons for release.

In light of the above, the court found no compelling reason to grant bail and refused the application. The respondent was to remain in custody pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4E, 18, 18AA, and 18AB, which guide the assessment of bail applications and the factors that must be considered in determining whether bail should be granted.

Orders