Re Lealiifano

[2014] VSC 382

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0099

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by SINII LEALIIFANO

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 August 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 August 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Lealiifano
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 382

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Show cause situation – Unacceptable risk of offending on bail – No point of principle – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s 4(4)(a).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Respondent	Ms A.S. Ellis	OPP
For the Applicant	Mr A. Lewin (solicitor)	Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

1. Sini Lealiifano faces a number of charges for indictable and some summary offences arising out of an incident or incidents which occurred in the Melbourne CBD on 12 April 2014.

1. It is alleged Lealiifano and others robbed an acquaintance of her motor car after breaking a window in the car.  In the course of this offence, it is alleged, he intentionally or recklessly injured the car’s owner, damaged the car and then drove the car whilst disqualified from driving.  It is further alleged that in the course of this activity the accused assaulted two other people, and falsely imprisoned others.

1. There are 16 charges in all, although there seems to be considerable overlap of many with each other.  At some stage there will need to be an intelligent rationalisation of these charges to enable the accused’s alleged criminality to be examined without distraction.  That is not essential at this stage as long as it is borne in mind that there is the considerable overlap to which I have referred.

1. The accused has been in custody since his arrest shortly after the events of 12 April.  He is facing a committal mention on 25 August, a committal sometime later, and — if he is committed — a trial sometime next year;  probably in the second half of next year.  By that time he will have been in custody for well over a year, a period which the prosecutor asserts is not inordinate.

1. At the date of these alleged offences the accused was on bail awaiting the determination of assault and driving charges, including driving while disqualified, the first of these being indictable.  Thus he is now in a “show cause” situation in respect of this current application.

1. The accused’s counsel referred to six matters which taken together, he submitted, established that the accused’s continued detention is not justified and he should be bailed.  He referred to the fact that although the accused has an impressive record of criminal offences, including violent offences, he has been relatively stable so far as violence is concerned over the last four years.  He said that he was in stable employment, and produced a reference from his employer to that effect (albeit one which seems to suggest that the accused is guilty of the offences, although how the employer would know is not disclosed).

1. He mentioned the delay to which I have already referred and said that a trial date in 2015 is such that the accused may well have served any sentence that he is likely to receive before he is tried.  He referred to the fact that the accused has stable accommodation with his current partner, that he can continue to live in that accommodation and continue the employment to which I have already referred.

1. At some time in the past, the accused was diagnosed with what was described as a schizophreniform condition and there seems no doubt that he has issues with drugs, particularly methamphetamine (which, it is conceded, was at least present at the time the current alleged offences took place).

1. Counsel for the accused offers conditions on any order for bail, including conditions as to curfews, non-contact with witnesses, et cetera.

1. The Crown opposes the grant of bail, pointing out that the onus is on the applicant to show cause as to why his detention is not justified.  The prosecutor says that if the accused is convicted he would receive something in the order of a minimum of 18 months’ gaol, and that he has a number of convictions for violence in the past, notwithstanding the accused's submission that they are, to some extent at least, some time in the past.

1. The principal matter I perceive the Crown relies upon is the risk that the accused will commit offences if he is released.  In this regard it must be noted that he has demonstrated a disregard for court orders on more than one occasion in the past, breaching an Intensive Correction Order and a Community Corrections Order imposed as late as last year.  In particular he has demonstrated that he gets into situations where it is, at lease, alleged that he has committed offences whilst he was on bail.

1. Weighing all of these matters, and in particular the risk of offending whilst on bail, I have come to the conclusion that the accused has not demonstrated that he ought to be given bail.  He has not demonstrated that his current detention is unjustified, and accordingly bail is refused.