Re Lado - [2020] VSC 132

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0043

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by Emmanuel LADO

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 March 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Lado
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 132

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Robbery, intentionally causing injury, and committing indictable offence whilst on bail – 19 year old offender – Prior convictions in Children’s Court for armed robbery, carjacking and affray – Whether exceptional circumstances exist – Availability of CISP support but unfavourable Youth Justice report – Exceptional circumstances not established – Unacceptable risk in any event – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D De Witt	Greg Thomas Barrister & Solicitor
For the Respondent	Mr N Moran	Legal and Prosecutions Specialists Branch, Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Emmanuel Lado, the applicant, seeks bail in respect of charges of robbery, theft, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, unlawful assault, assault in company and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.

Background

The applicant has been in custody since the day of his arrest on 18 February 2020. The charges relate to allegations of events said to have occurred on 25 January 2020. The matter is next listed for mention at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 9 April 2020. I was informed by Mr De Witt for the applicant during the application that enquiries have revealed that a contest mention may be heard on 2 June and a contested hearing should be able to proceed on about 4 August 2020.

At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail in respect of two separate groups of charges. One group of charges had been laid on 25 December 2019. These were charges of possessing a drug of dependence (two charges), contravening a conduct condition of bail and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. The applicant was also on bail for charges laid on 23 September 2019, being theft of a motor vehicle, dangerous driving, failing to stop a motor vehicle on request and unlicensed driving .

Those two sets of charges are yet to be finalised.

It is agreed that because the applicant is charged with committing a Schedule 2 offence[1] while on bail for a Schedule 2 offence,[2] bail must be refused unless he satisfies the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.
[1]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘Act’), Schedule 2, item 30.
[2]Ibid.

The applicant applied for bail on 5 March 2020 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. That application was refused on the basis that the applicant had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail.

The Alleged Offending

At 5.07am on 25 January 2020, CCTV footage depicted three males in a lift…

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 Lado

Details

AGLC: Re Lado [2020] VSC 132
Case: [2020] VSC 132
Decision Date: 20 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Lado involves a 19-year-old defendant charged with multiple serious offences, including robbery, intentionally causing injury, and committing an indictable offence while on bail. The defendant has a history of criminal conduct, with prior convictions in the Children’s Court for armed robbery, carjacking, and affray. The matter was before the court to determine whether the defendant was eligible for bail under the Bail Act 1977. The court was tasked with assessing whether the defendant had a case to answer and whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant the granting of bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's prior criminal history, the nature of the current charges, and the potential risk to the community warranted the refusal of bail. The court needed to consider the criteria outlined in the Bail Act, including the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's history of non-compliance with bail conditions, and the risk of reoffending or causing harm to the community. Additionally, the court had to weigh the availability of community-based support, such as the Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP), against the unfavourable Youth Justice report and the defendant's potential risk to the community.

In delivering its judgment, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances were not established. The court found that the defendant's prior criminal conduct and the seriousness of the current charges indicated a significant risk to the community. Despite the availability of CISP support, the court considered the unfavourable Youth Justice report and concluded that the defendant posed an unacceptable risk. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under the Bail Act to refuse bail. The court emphasised the need to protect the community and the importance of preventing the defendant from reoffending.

The final orders of the court were that bail was refused for the defendant. The court directed that the defendant remain in custody pending the determination of the substantive charges against him. The decision underscored the court's commitment to balancing the rights of the defendant with the need to protect the community from potential harm.

Orders