Re Lawn - [2023] VSC 390

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0123

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by HARLEY LAWN

BETWEEN:

HARLEY LAWN	Applicant
and
VICTORIA POLICE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 June 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 June 2023
DATE OF REASONS:	19 July 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Lawn
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 390

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges relating to contravening Family Violence Intervention Orders, unlawful assault, recklessly causing injury, threats to damage property — 16 charges total — Victim is ex‑partner — Aboriginal applicant — Applicant homeless at time of alleged offending — Mental health, suicide concerns — Alleged breach of Community Corrections Order and application to revoke bail underway — Bail granted — Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4E, 18, 18AA, 18AB.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	G Chipkin	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	A Singh	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Harley Lawn [‘the applicant’] is a 25 year old Aboriginal man who has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder [‘ASD’] and is in custody for the first time.

He seeks bail in the following matters brought by Senior Constable Alex Flight:

Alleged offending 7 June 2023; arrested, charged and remanded in custody same date

(a) persistently contravening a family violence intervention order [‘FVIO’];

(b) using a carriage service to harass;

(c) making a threat to damage property;

(d) recklessly causing injury;

(e) contravening an FVIO (three charges);

(f) unlawful assault of a female;

(g) unlawful assault;

(h) throwing a missile to injure;

(i) committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (four charges);

(j) harassing a witness; and

(k) interfering with a motor vehicle without just cause or excuse.

Outstanding matters

The applicant is subject to bail in the following two outstanding matters:

Informant Constable Jack Marsh
Alleged offending between 10 November and 12 December 2022, charged 12 December 2022

(a) contravening an FVIO (six charges); and

(b) persistently contravening an FVIO (two charges).

Informant Constable Sam Lindeman
Alleged offending 10 August 2022, charged 7 November 2022

(c) unlawful assault.

Background and procedural history

In March 2022 the applicant and CH [‘the complainant’] commenced an intimate relationship. In April 2022 they commenced living together in a share house. In July 2022 the applicant and the complainant ended their relationship but continued to rent a bedroom together.

On 27 July 2022 the applicant was arrested and charged by informant Abdulrahman in relation to violent offending he committed against the complainant and her male friend, LA, the same day.[1]
[1]Upon observing the complainant and LA watching television together in the bedroom he shared with the complainant, the applicant slammed LA into a window, causing it to smash; strangled him; struck him to the knee with shards of glass from the broken window; punched him to the ribs and…

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 Lawn

Details

AGLC: Re Lawn [2023] VSC 390
Case: [2023] VSC 390
Decision Date: 19 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Lawn involved an applicant who was facing 16 charges related to contravening Family Violence Intervention Orders, unlawful assault, recklessly causing injury, and threats to damage property. The victim in this case was the applicant's ex-partner. The applicant was an Aboriginal person who was homeless at the time of the alleged offending. The court was also made aware of the applicant's mental health issues and concerns about suicide. At the time of the bail application, there was another application to revoke the applicant's bail underway due to an alleged breach of a Community Corrections Order. The case was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the applicant was eligible for bail, and if so, what bail conditions should be imposed. The court had to consider the seriousness of the charges, the risk of reoffending, the risk to the community, and the applicant's personal circumstances. The court also had to consider the principles of justice and the rights of the victim under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

The court found that the applicant was eligible for bail, but only on strict conditions. The court noted that the seriousness of the charges was high, and the risk of reoffending was significant. However, the court also considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including their mental health issues and homelessness, and found that these factors weighed in favour of bail. The court also considered the risk to the community and found that it could be mitigated by imposing strict bail conditions. The court imposed conditions such as residence at a specified address, regular reporting to the police, and refraining from contact with the victim. The court also ordered that the applicant undergo a mental health assessment and follow any recommended treatment.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant be granted bail on the strict conditions outlined above. The court also ordered that the applicant be released on bail if they were not already in custody. The court noted that the application to revoke bail was still pending and that the applicant's bail could be revoked if they were found to have breached their Community Corrections Order.

Orders